Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

indebtedness, was only that payment should be made on or before a certain date subsequent to the close of the taxable year; and a credit in computing the tax on undistributed profits was not allowable under § 26 (c) (2) of the Revenue Act of 1936, since the contract did not require the specified portion of earnings "to be paid within the taxable year" or "to be irrevocably set aside within the taxable year," within the meaning of the Section. P. 107.

3. That a taxpayer with such a contract might be constrained by prudent business judgment or by the possibility of fiduciary liability to refrain from using the portion of earnings involved or actually to set it aside, is immaterial. Nor is it material that anticipatory payments were in fact made within the taxable year. P. 107. 4. Section 43 of the Revenue Act of 1936 is inapplicable here, since the question is not whether the taxpayers made payment, either on a cash or on an accrual basis, within the taxable year, but whether their contracts required them to pay or to "irrevocably set aside" within the taxable year. P. 108.

5. That the interpretation of a tax deduction statute in accordance with its plain meaning produces harsh results is a matter for Congress and not the courts. P. 110.

6. The legislative history of § 26 (c) (2) does not support the contention that the Section embraces the contracts involved here. P. 110.

124 F.2d 360, 397, reversed.

CERTIORARI, 316 U. S. 651, to review the affirmance of decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals (No. 41, 41 B. T. A. 1273) redetermining tax deficiencies.

Mr. Valentine Brookes argued the cause, and Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Sewall Key, Edward First, and Richard S. Salant were on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. Donald J. Lynn for the Ohio Leather Company; Mr. Raymond S. Powers, with whom Mr. Arthur Morgan was on the brief, for the Strong Manufacturing Company; and Mr. Raymond T. Sawyer, Jr., with whom Mr. Raymond T. Jackson was on the brief, for the Warren Tool Corporation,-respondents.

Opinion of the Court.

317 U.S.

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue is whether respondents are entitled to certain claimed credits against their undistributed profits tax for the 1936 taxable year1 by virtue of § 26 (c) (2) of the Revenue Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1648.2

In each of these cases the taxpayer corporation contracted prior to May 1, 1936, by a written agreement, to apply a percentage of its net earnings of a particular calendar year to an indebtedness of the corporation; in each case the agreement expressly provided only that the payment of the specified percentage was to be made on or before a certain date-April 1 in the case of the Ohio Leather Company and Warren Tool Corporation, and April 15 in the case of the Strong Manufacturing Company in the year following the calendar year during

1 Taxpayer in No. 42 is also claiming a credit for the 1937 taxable year.

2 SEC. 26. CREDITS OF CORPORATIONS.

In the case of a corporation the following credits shall be allowed to the extent provided in the various sections imposing tax

(c) Contracts Restricting Payment of Dividends.

(2) Disposition of Profits of Taxable Year.-An amount equal to the portion of the earnings and profits of the taxable year which is required (by a provision of a written contract executed by the corporation prior to May 1, 1936, which provision expressly deals with the disposition of earnings and profits of the taxable year) to be paid within the taxable year in discharge of a debt, or to be irrevocably set aside within the taxable year for the discharge of a debt; to the extent that such amount has been so paid or set aside. For the purposes of this paragraph, a requirement to pay or set aside an amount equal to a percentage of earnings and profits shall be considered a requirement to pay or set aside such percentage of earnings and profits. As used in this paragraph, the word "debt" does not include a debt incurred after April 30, 1936.

[blocks in formation]

3

which the net earnings arose. However, the specified percentage was actually paid during the taxable year in each case. By reason of these contracts and payments, taxpayers have sought to avail themselves of the credit authorized by § 26 (c) (2), which relieves from the tax on undistributed profits, imposed by § 14 of the 1936 Act, any profits which may not be distributed because of a contract requiring that a portion of earnings of the taxable year be paid or irrevocably set aside within the taxable year for the discharge of a debt. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the credits claimed should not be allowed, and assessed deficiencies in each case. The Board of Tax Appeals overruled the Commis

3 The relevant contractual provisions in each case are as follows:

No. 40

By an indenture entered into on April 17, 1936, the Ohio Leather Company covenanted to pay $25,000 annually to a trustee to create a sinking fund for the security of its debentures, and further covenanted that it would "on or before the next succeeding first day of April, pay an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the net earnings earned by the Company during the fiscal year ending on the thirtyfirst day of the next preceding December, as such net earnings are defined hereinafter in the Article, which sums and amounts shall be held by the Trustee for the security of all outstanding Debentures until paid out as hereinafter provided."

No. 41

By a note and mortgage agreement executed April 15, 1932, the Strong Manufacturing Company bound itself to apply forty per centum of its net earnings upon its unpaid obligation. The mortgage provided: "The Company covenants and agrees that until the principal and interest of the note hereby secured shall have been fully paid and beginning on January 1st, One Thousand nine hundred thirty-four, the Company will apply forty per centum (40%) per annum of its net earnings for any calendar year in payment of the interest accruing and becoming payable upon such note in such year, and the balance of the principal amount of such note unpaid prior to April 15th in such year; provided, however, that the covenant herein made shall not be con

Opinion of the Court.

317 U.S.

We

sioner, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. granted certiorari because of an asserted conflict with Antietam Hotel Corp. v. Commissioner, 123 F. 2d 274.5

Since § 26 (c) (2) grants a special credit in the nature of a deduction, the taxpayer must sustain the burden of showing compliance with its exact terms. Helvering v. Northwest Steel Mills, 311 U. S. 46, 49; White v. United States, 305 U. S. 281, 292; New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U. S. 435, 440. We agree with the Commissioner that taxpayers have not carried that burden.

Section 26 (c) (2) expressly sets up three specific conditions precedent with which a corporation devoting part of its earnings to the payment of debts rather than the payment of dividends must comply before it is entitled to relief from the tax on undistributed profits (1) there must be a written contract executed by the corporation

strued to relieve the Company from the payment on April 15th in such year of the installment specified for payment by the terms of said note nor of the regular interest payments in such year, likewise as specified in said note.

[ocr errors]

"Settlement for all amounts becoming payable under this provision in excess of the principal and interest payments absolutely required in the calendar year as of which such net earnings are determined shall be made by the Company to the Bank not later than April 15th of the succeeding year."

No. 42

On November 1, 1932, the Warren Tool Corporation executed a first mortgage and deed of trust to secure a bond issue. The mortgage contained a sinking fund provision which required the Corporation, on and after April 1, 1935, to pay to the trustee "on or before the 1st day of April of each year thereafter to and including April 1, 1942, a sum of money equal to Twenty-five Per Cent (25%) of its net earnings for the calendar year next preceding."

* An opinion was written only in Commissioner v. Strong Mfg. Co.. 124 F. 2d 360. The other two cases were per curiam affirmances on the authority of that opinion. 124 F. 2d 397.

5

Compare Helvering v. Moloney Electric Co., 120 F. 2d 617, 621.

[blocks in formation]

prior to May 1, 1936; (2) this contract must contain a provision expressly dealing with the disposition of earnings and profits of the taxable year; and (3) this contract must contain a provision requiring that a portion of such earnings and profits either (a) "be paid within the taxable year in discharge of a debt," or (b) "be irrevocably set aside within the taxable year for the discharge of a debt." A taxpayer whose contract satisfies each of these three requirements is entitled to a credit to the extent of the amount which has been so paid or irrevocably set aside.

While taxpayers have met the first two statutory requirements the written contracts antedate May 1, 1936, and contain provisions expressly dealing with the disposition of earnings for the taxable year, they have not met the third one. The contracts clearly contain no provision requiring the payment of earnings "within the taxable year in discharge of a debt." Nor do they, contrary to taxpayers' assertion, require the irrevocable setting aside of earnings "within the taxable year for the discharge of a debt," within the meaning of § 26 (c) (2). The contracts are wholly silent in respect of any setting aside; they do not in terms require taxpayers to set aside the amount due, nor do they direct any segregation or physical retention whatsoever. The only requirement is that taxpayers pay on or before a date after the close of the taxable year. This is not enough. Until that date taxpayers were free to use the specified percentages as they pleased, so far as the agreements were concerned. That prudent business judgment, or the possibility of fiduciary liability imposed by operation of law might have con

• This holding makes it unnecessary to consider the Commissioner's contention that the Strong Manufacturing Company did not meet the second requirement as to $5,000 of the $46,500 paid in 1936, because it was obligated to pay that sum by April 15, 1937, even in the event that there were no earnings in 1936.

« ForrigeFortsett »