Glass v. Commissioner
Opinion
Pursuant to terms of a qualifying sec. 368(a)(1)(B) reorganization additional stock was due petitioners in an amount determined by average stock exchange closing price in December, 1970. Stock delivered in 1971.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
STERRETT,
| Petitioner | Docket No. | Year | Amount |
| Erwin Glass | 484-77 | 1971 | $11,924.25 |
| Sharon Lee McDowell | |||
| (Formerly Sharon Lee | 485-77 | 1971 | 11,924.25 |
| Glass) | |||
| Jerome Dreyfuss and | |||
| Iris Dreyfuss | 486-77 | 1971 | 8,969.00 |
| Milton Cohen and | |||
| Norma Cohen | 487-77 | 1971 | 3,289.00 |
| Robert Pinkert and | |||
| Barbara Pinkert | 488-77 | 1971 | 12,452.00 |
| Lawrence Jaffe and | |||
| Carol Jaffe | 489-77 | 1971 | 755.00 |
| Samuel Quartarone | 490-77 | 1971 | 746.30 |
| Ray Mitchell and | |||
| Betty Mitchell | 491-77 | 1971 | 2,115.95 |
Due to concessions by the parties 2 the sole remaining issue for decision is the taxable year in which petitioners must include *312 in their gross income shares of stock, representing imputed interest income under
This case was submitted under Rule 122 hence all of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
Petitioner Erwin Glass resided in Chicago, Illinois at the time his petition herein was filed. His former spouse, petitioner Sharon Lee McDowell, resided in Vail, Colorado at the time her petition herein was filed. Throughout 1971 Erwin Glass and Sharon Lee McDowell were husband and wife and they filed a joint Federal income tax return for the taxable year 1971.
Petitioner Jerome *313 Dreyfuss and Iris Dreyfuss, husband and wife, resided in Flossmoor, Illinois at the time of filing their petition herein. For the taxable year 1971 they filed a joint Federal income tax return.
Petitioners Milton Cohen and Norma Cohen, husband and wife, resided in Beachwood, Ohio at the time of filing their petition herein. For the 1971 taxable year they filed a joint Federal income tax return.
Petitioners Robert Pinkert and Barbara Pinkert, husband and wife, resided in Glencoe, Illinois at the time of filing their petition herein. They filed a joint Federal income tax return for the 1971 taxable year.
Petitioners Lawrence Jaffe and Carol Jaffe, husband and wife, resided in Wilmette, Illinois at the time of filing their petition herein. They filed a joint Federal income tax return for the 1971 taxable year.
Petitioner Samuel Quartarone, resided in Olympia Fields, Illinois at thetime of filing his petition herein. He filed a Federal income tax return, as a single individual, for the taxable year 1971.
Petitioners Ray Mitchell and Betty Mitchell, husband and wife, resided in Nashville, Tennessee at the time of filing their petition herein. For the 1971 taxable year they filed *314 a joint Federal income tax return.
Petitioners Sharon Lee McDowell, Iris Dreyfuss, Norma Cohen, Barbara Pinkert, Carol Jaffe and Betty Mitchell are parties to this case solely as a result of their having filed joint Federal income tax returns with their husbands in 1971. Therefore, for convenience, the male petitioners will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners.
Prior to December 31, 1968 petitioners' stock port-folios included common stock in the following corporations:
| Milton Cohen | 100 shares of Steel Coils, Incorporated |
| 1,000 shares of Cox Metal Processing Company | |
| Samuel Quartarone | 2,500 shares of Cox Metal Processing Company |
| Ray Mitchell | 250 shares of Mitchell Steel, Incorporated |
| Robert Pinkert | 86 shares of Clearing Steel, Incorporated |
| Erwin Glass | 77 shares of Clearing Steel, Incorporated |
| Jerome Dreyfuss | 63 shares of Clearing Steel, Incorporated |
| Lawrence Jaffe | 9 shares of Clearing Steel, Incorporated |
National Industries, Inc. (National), its common stock listed on the New York stock exchange, in 1968 formed four wholly owned subsidiaries. Each subsidiary (hereinafter the Purchasing Corporations) held shares of National common stock.
Steel Coils, Incorporated, Cox Metal Processing Company, *315 Mitchell Steel, Incorporated, and Clearing Steel, Incorporated (hereinafter the Selling Corporations), each entered into a separate but similar written agreement with a different Purchasing Corporation. These agreements were each dated December 31, 1968 and entitled "JOINT AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER." They each provided in pertinent part as follows:
* * *
1.4
1.5
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
III.
3.1.
(a) Each Selling Corp. Common Share outstanding on the Effective Date (except any shares owned on the Effective Date by Selling Corp.) shall automatically and by virtue of the merger be converted into that *318 number of voting shares of Common Stock, par value $1.00 per share, of National ("National Common Stock") which is [computed under a formula based upon the prior earnings per share of outstanding common stock of the Selling Corporation].
(b)
(c)
(d)
* * *
(f)
The above written agreements were carried out according to their terms and petitioners became stockholders of National prior to June 30, 1969. The transaction constituted section 368(a)(1)(B) reorganizations. During the month of December, 1970, the average price of National common stock, computed in accordance with paragraph 3.1.(f) of the agreements, was less than $25.00 per share. Therefore, additional shares of National common stock were issued to petitioners. Certificates for the additional shares were issued and physically *321 received by petitioners during the first two months of 1971.
The number of National common shares actually received after 1969 by petitioners, their fair market value at date of issue and the amounts of unstated interest income determined by respondent are as follows:
| Interest Income | |||
| Number of | Fair Market | Per Statutory | |
| Petitioner | Shares Received | Value of Shares | Notices 3 |
| Erwin Glass | 28,967 | $224,494.25 | $21,114.00 |
| Jerome Dreyfuss | 23,699 | 183,667.25 | 17,273.94 |
| Milton Cohen | 8,147 | 63,139.25 | 5,938.00 |
| Robert Pinkert | 32,252 | 249,953.00 | 23,508.00 |
| Lawrence Jaffe | 3,386 | 26,241.50 | 2,468.00 |
| Samuel Quartarone | 2,056 | 15,934.00 | 1,498.60 |
| Ray Mitchell | 5,962 | 46,205.50 | 4,345.64 |
The parties on brief agree that
Moreover as the parties correctly state on brief the key inquiry herein is whether or not petitioners had the National stock readily available to them in 1970, i.e., was it subject to their "unfettered command."
(a) General rule. Income although not actually reduced to a taxpayer's possession is constructively received by him in the taxable year during which it is credited to his account, set apart *323 for him, or otherwise made available so that he may draw upon it at any time, or so that he could have drawn upon it during the taxable year if notice of intention to withdraw had been given. However, income is not constructively received if the taxpayer's control of its receipt is subject to substantial limitations or restrictions. Thus, if a corporation credits its employees with bonus stock, but the stock is not available to such employees until some future date, the mere crediting on the books of the corporation does not constitute receipt.
Whether the taxpayer has the necessary control is a question of fact.
Petitioners contend that as of December 31, 1970, pursuant to the merger agreement, they had an inherent ownership interest in the contingent National shares. They possessed an unrestricted legal right to demand payment on December 31, 1970 5*324 and physical delivery in 1971 was only for the convenience of National.
After careful consideration of the record and the well established case law in the constructive receipt area, we agree with respondent and hold that petitioners did not possess ownership rights to the stock in 1970 nor a legal right to demand and receive payment in 1970. Under the agreement, they may not have been able to determine, prior to January 1, 1971, whether Article III, section 3.1.(f) would be applicable.
Further, section 3.1.(f) gave National until March 1, 1971, to deliver any additional stock due under that provision. The petitioners cannot be deemed to have constructively received the stock in 1970 when they had no legal right to compel its delivery in that year.It seems beyond peradventure that, if a dividend check dated December 31st but not received until the subsequent year is not income in the earlier year, the stock in issue cannot be held received in 1970.
Footnotes
1. Cases of the following petitioners are consolidated herewith: Erwin Glass, docket No. 484-77; Sharon Lee McDowell (formerly Sharon Lee Glass), docket No. 485-77; Jerome Dreyfuss and Iris Dreyfuss, docket No. 486-77; Milton Cohen and Norma Cohen, docket No. 487-77; Robert Pinkert and Barbara Pinkert, docket No. 488-77; Lawrence Jaffe and Carol Jaffe, docket No. 489-77; Samuel Quartarone, docket No. 490-77; and Ray Mitchell and Betty Mitchell, docket No. 491-77.↩
2. The parties in docket Nos. 484-77 and 485-77 agree that petitioners are entitled to a charitable contribution deduction in the amount of $35 in addition to the contribution deduction allowed by respondent in the statutory notice of deficiency. Also they agree that respondent did not err in determining the amount of interest expense deductible by petitioner in the 1971 taxable year. Moreover the parties in docket No. 489-77 agree that petitioners are entitled to a sales tax deduction in the total amount of $512 in lieu of the $427 deduction allowed by respondent in his statutory notice of deficiency.↩
3. The parties agree that, if petitioners are considered to have received interest income in 1971 pursuant to
sec. 483↩ , respondent has correctly computed the amounts thereof in his statutory notices.4. Although the record does not so indicate, it appears that sec. 6501 precludes assessment of any tax for the 1970 taxable year. Moreover, based upon petitioners' argument that they constructively received the income it is apparent that they filed their returns on the cash basis.↩
5. After this case was submitted, petitioners attached two documents to their opening brief indicating that, on National's December 31, 1970 financial statement, it provided for issuance of the contingent shares to petitioners. Assuming,
arguendo,↩ that these documents are part of the record, which they are not, the fact that National accrued and provided on its financials for the issuance of said contingent shares by no means proves that petitioners had the right to demand payment as of December 31, 1970.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.