Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HELVERING v. AMERICAN CHICLE CO.

decided: March 5, 1934.

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
v.
AMERICAN CHICLE CO.



CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

Hughes, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, Stone, Roberts, Cardozo

Author: Mcreynolds

[ 291 U.S. Page 428]

 MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Assessments by petitioner which treated as realized income the difference between the face value of certain bonds assumed by respondent in 1914 and the amount at which it purchased them in 1922, 1924 and 1925, were disapproved by the Board of Tax Appeals. The court below affirmed this action, and the matter is here by certiorari. The meager stipulated facts present only a narrow point; and to that our decision must be limited.

[ 291 U.S. Page 429]

     Respondent is a New Jersey corporation the nature of whose business is undisclosed. Its books are kept on the accrual basis.

The Sen Sen Chiclet Company, incorporated under the laws of Maine, also carried on an undisclosed business. In 1909 it issued a series of 20 year bonds -- whether secured by a lien, or otherwise, does not appear. The indenture under which they issued required that $50,000 be supplied each year which the trustee should use for purchasing outstanding bonds.

In 1914 respondent bought all assets of the Sen Sen Company. In part payment it assumed all outstanding liabilities of the seller -- among them $2,425,000 of the 1909 bonds. There is nothing in the record to show the nature of these assets, or what became of them, or the outcome of the transaction.

Respondent purchased in 1922 $82,000 of the Sen Sen bonds for $55,650.94 -- $26,349.06 less than their face. During 1924 it and the trustee under the indenture purchased $59,000 of the same bonds for $47,602.10 -- $11,397.90 below their par value. Likewise, during 1925 they purchased $201,500 for $186,146.31 -- $15,353.69 less than their face.

The Commissioner treated these differences -- $26,349.06, $11,397.90 and $15,353.69 -- as income realized by respondent. The Board of Tax Appeals ruled otherwise and said --

"The payments involved in the transactions under consideration were payments on the purchase price of the Sen Sen Chiclet Company's assets, paid, under the conditions of the agreement, to the holders of that company's bonds. When all of the bonds have been retired by the petitioner its obligations to the Sen Sen Chiclet Company will have been satisfied in full, and whatever the total amount paid to retire the bonds, it will constitute a

[ 291 U.S. Page 430]

     part of the cost to petitioner of the Sen Sen ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.