Supreme Court of the United States, 1932

Planters Cotton Oil Co. v. Hopkins

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 16, 1932 · Cardozo

286 U.S. 332; 52 S. Ct. 509; 76 L. Ed. 1135; 1932 U.S. LEXIS 608; 1932 C.B. 153; 11 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1; 3 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 940 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Messrs. J. M. Bur ford and Wm. A. Sutherland, with whom Messrs. Joe A. Worsham and J. L. Gammon were on the brief, for petitioners., Mr. Whitney North Seymour, with whom Solicitor General Thacher, Assistant Attorney General Youngquist, and Messrs. Sewall Key, Norman D. Keller, and Wm. H. Riley, Jr., were on the brief, for respondent., Messrs. Frederick H. Wood, Hoyt A. Moore, and A. James Slater, by leave of Court, filed a brief as amici curiae.

Cases that cite this one

43 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Glenn Weible and Patricia Weible v. United States (9th Cir. 1957)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Montgomery (5th Cir. 1944)
Richards v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (5th Cir. 1940)
Wolter Construction Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (6th Cir. 1980)
Omaha Nat. Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (8th Cir. 1950)
Riverside Cement Co. v. Rogan (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1945)
Merchants Bank Bldg. Co. v. Helvering (8th Cir. 1936)
Weber Flour Mills Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (10th Cir. 1936)
Wilson & Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1936)
Van Vleck v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2d Cir. 1935)
Bancker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (5th Cir. 1935)
Weber Flour Mills Co. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1935)
V. Vivaudou, Inc. v. Commissioner (2d Cir. 1935)
Brandon Corporation v. COMMISSIONER OF INT. REVENUE (4th Cir. 1934)
Theodore Tiedemann & Sons, Inc. v. Commissioner (2d Cir. 1934)
Jamison v. Edwards (District Court, S.D. New York 1933)
Industrial Cotton Mills Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev. (4th Cir. 1932)
Kleinsasser v. United States (District Court, D. Montana 1981)
Wolter Constr. Co. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1977)
Baltimore Aircoil Company v. United States (District Court, D. Maryland 1971)
Trinco Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1954)
West Boylston Mfg. Co. of Alabama v. Commissioner (5th Cir. 1941)
Walsh-McGuire Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev. (6th Cir. 1938)
PENNSYLVANIA CO., ETC. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev. (3d Cir. 1935)
Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances on Lives & Granting Annuities v. Commissioner (3d Cir. 1935)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*333 Mr. Justice Cardozo

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Three corporations, Planters Cotton Oil Co., Inc., Waxahachie, Planters Cotton Oil Co., Inc., Ennis, and Farmers Gins, Inc., were organized under the laws of Texas in August and September, 1924. Two joint stock associations, Planters Cotton Oil Company, Waxahachie, and Planters Cotton Oil Company, Ennis, which had been organized in earlier years, retained their separate existence. One man, H. N. Chapman, was the owner of 98% of the shares of the unincorporated associations. He caused the assets of those associations, or substantially all of them, to be transferred to the newly organized corporations, and received in return substantially all the shares of stock.

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1925, the three corporations and the two joint stock associations filed a consolidated income tax return wherein the corporations, which had earned a net income of $147,636.25, claimed a deduction of $78,399.25 for loss suffered by the associations during the year preceding the affiliation. The deduction was disallowed, and suit was brought by the corporation and the associations for the refund of the tax to the extent of the overpayment claimed. The District Court dismissed the petition, 47 F. (2d) 659; the Court of Appeals affirmed, 53 F. (2d) 825; and by certiorari the case is here. .

The controversy is ruled by our judgment in Woolford Realty Co. v. Rose, ante, p. 319, unless the fact that in this case one shareholder, Chapman, was the owner of substantially all the shares of the five affiliated companies supplies an essential element of difference. We think it does not. Chapman was free, if he desired, to continue to do business in an unincorporated form. Preferring the *334 privileges of corporate organization, he brought into being three corporations and did business through them. These corporations are not identical with the unincorporated associations to whose principal assets they have succeeded, and the losses of the associations suffered in an earlier year are not the losses of the corporations that came into existence afterwards.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.