S. BLECHMAN & SONS, INC., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Tax Court's finding that the expenditure was for the purchase of securities, not cancellation of an employment contract, is affirmed.
Taxpayer paid $120,000 to a stockholder and his wife pursuant to an agreement for the sale of their securities, the stockholder's resignation, and rel…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Question Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the Tax Court erred in finding that the disputed expenditure was for the purchase of securities, rather than the cancellation of an employment contract. The question is one of fact. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467, 64 S.Ct. 249, 88 L.Ed. 171. Hence the decision of the Tax Court must be affirmed, unless clearly erroneous. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 52, 28 U.S.C.A., United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746, rehearing denied 333 U.S. 869, 68 S.Ct. 788, 92 L.Ed. 1147.
The payment in question was made pursuant to an agreement between the taxpayer and Marx Slonim, a stockholder in the taxpayer, and Slonim’s wife, owner of debentures issued by the taxpayer. The agreement provided that Slonim and his wife were to sell their securities to the taxpayer, that Slonim was to resign as director, officer and employee of the taxpayer, and that he and his wife were to release any claims against the taxpayer and its other directors and stockholders. The contract specified a consideration of $120,000.
Two officers of the taxpayer testified that $24,000 of the total consideration represented payment to Slonim for the termination of his employment contract. It appeared, however, that Slonim was employed on a year-to-year arrangement and Slonim testified that he had asked' for $150,000 as he'figured “the business is worth'that much,” which was some indication that the entire payment was for the debentures and the stock. Moreover, one of the exhibits was an affidavit' of' petitioner’s president, stating that Slonim had resigned and “sold his holdings * * * consisting of 440 shares of common stock and $24,200 debenture bonds held by his wife the corporation for the sum of $120,000.” We cannot say, on this record, that the Tax Court was clearly wrong in resolving this issue of fact against the taxpayer. . .
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1948)
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467 (U.S. 1943)
- Howell v. Ragen, 333 U.S. 869 (U.S. 1948)