AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The taxpayer, Commonwealth Container Corporation, a New Jersey corporation engaged in the manufacture of corrugated paperboard and containers, appealed a Tax Court decision that held deficiencies in income taxes for the years 1961 and 1962 totaling $49,935.27. The central factual issue concerns the merger of Tri-City Container Corp., a New York corporation also in the same business, into Commonwealth on or about June 21, 1961.

Tri-City had incurred net operating losses prior to the merger, and the controversy centers on the extent to which Commonwealth may include Tri-City’s net operating loss carryover in its own deductions for 1961 and 1962. The merger involved an exchange of Tri-City’s 180 shares for an equal number of Commonwealth shares, resulting in a post-merger ownership structure. Subsequently, additional shares were issued to certain shareholders to address concerns about the sufficiency of shares issued in the merger for tax deduction purposes.

The Tax Court held that Commonwealth was entitled to deduct only 65% of Tri-City’s pre-merger net operating losses, concluding that Commonwealth failed to meet the requirements of Section 382(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. This appeal challenges that determination.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. What portion of the net operating loss carryover of Tri-City Container Corp., following its merger into Commonwealth Container Corporation, may be included in Commonwealth's net operating loss deduction for the years 1961 and 1962 under Section 382(b) of the Internal Revenue Code?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
48 T.C. 483 Consideration of whether shareholder ownership met the requirements of Section 382(b) concerning net operating loss carryovers after mergers. The court relied on the Tax Court’s detailed analysis and findings in this case, particularly regarding the valuation and ownership interests of shareholders, to affirm the limitation on the deductibility of Tri-City’s net operating losses.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused on the application of Section 382(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, which limits the use of net operating loss carryovers following a change in corporate ownership. The Tax Court had found two key deficiencies in Commonwealth's claim:

  • First, the shareholders of the loss corporation (Tri-City) did not own at least 20% of the fair market value of Commonwealth’s outstanding stock “as a result of owning stock of the loss corporation” because only 180 out of 1,380 shares were issued to Tri-City shareholders in the merger.
  • Second, Commonwealth and Tri-City were not owned “substantially by the same persons in the same proportion” because Elmer Hertzmark owned 25% of Commonwealth but had no interest in Tri-City.

The court accepted the Tax Court’s assumption that Hertzmark’s shares were equal in value to those of other shareholders, relying on the lack of evidence to the contrary. The court thus affirmed the Tax Court’s conclusion that Commonwealth could only deduct 65% of Tri-City’s net operating losses.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed the Tax Court’s judgment limiting Commonwealth Container Corporation’s net operating loss deduction to 65% of Tri-City Container Corp.’s pre-merger net operating losses.

This decision directly affects the parties by upholding the tax deficiency assessments for 1961 and 1962. The court did not establish new precedent but relied on the existing statutory framework of Section 382(b) and the Tax Court’s thorough factual and legal analysis.

COMMONWEALTH CONTAINER CORP., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BIGGS, Circuit Judge.

The taxpayer, Commonwealth Container Corporation, appeals from a decision of the Tax Court of the United States holding that there were deficiencies in income taxes for the year 1961 in the sum of $28,474.52 and for the year 1962 in the sum of $21,460.75. Jurisdiction is based on 26 U.S.C. § 7482. The only issue presented is what part of the net operating loss carryover of Tri-City Container Corp., which merged into Commonwealth on or about June 21, 1961, may be included in Commonwealth's net operating loss deduction for the years 1961 and 1962.

Simply stated the facts are as follows. The Tri-City Corporation was a New York corporation engaged in the manufacture of corrugated paperboard and containers. From its organization in 1955 up to the date of its merger with the taxpayer, Commonwealth Container, it had 180 outstanding shares owned as follows:

Shareholder Number of Shares

Paul Densen 85½ Abbot Greene 85½ Irwin Densen 9 ____ Total 180

Sometime prior to the merger of Tri-City with the taxpayer, Paul Densen and Abbot Greene each transferred 10 shares of their stock to trusts for their children so that immediately prior to the merger the stock of Tri-City was owned as follows:

Number Percentage Shareholder of Shares of Total

Paul Densen 75½ 41.94 Abbot Greene 75½ 41.94 Irwin Densen 9 5.00 Various parties as trustees of 4 trusts holding 5 shares for each trust 20 11.02 _____ ______ Total 180 100.00

Discrepancies between the totals and figures shown in this and other included charts are due to the rounding off of some of the figures.

The taxpayer is a New Jersey corporation which is also engaged in the corrugated paperboard and container business. It was organized by Paul and Irwin Densen and Abbot Greene in 1951. Prior to the merger of taxpayer with Tri-City on June 21, 1961, taxpayer's stock was owned as follows:

Number Percentage of of Shareholder Shares Total

Paul Densen 356 29.66 Abbot Greene 356 29.66 Irwin Densen 60 5.00 Elmer Hertzmark 300 25.00 Various parties as trustees of 4 trusts, holding 32 shares for each trust 128 10.68 ____ ______ Total 1200 100.00

For some years prior to 1960 the taxpayer had operated at a profit while Tri-City had operated at a loss. The shareholders of both companies decided to merge the companies and the original plan of reorganization called for a transfer of the assets and business of Tri-City to the taxpayer in exchange for 300 shares of the latter's common stock. This plan was abandoned when taxpayer was unable to obtain a favorable ruling from the Internal Revenue Service that no gain or loss would be recognized by the stockholders of either party to the reorganization. Subsequently, in March, 1961, a new plan was adopted whereby each share of the 180 outstanding common shares of Tri-City was exchanged for and converted into one share of the common stock of the taxpayer. Immediately after the merger, on June 21, 1961, the taxpayer's outstanding common stock was owned as follows:

Number Percentage Shareholder of Shares of Total

Paul Densen 431½ 31.20 Abbot Greene 431½ 31.20 Elmer Hertzmark 300 21.74 Irwin Densen 69 5.00 Various parties as trustees of 4 trusts, holding 37 shares each 148 10.72 ____ ______ 1380 100.00

About six months after the merger, Hertzmark and taxpayer dissolved their old employment agreement, under which Hertzmark had purchased his stock in Commonwealth, by entering into a new agreement. The new agreement continued the earlier restrictions on alienation of Hertzmark's stock but added that in computing the value of his shares any value attributable to the assets and business of taxpayer's Tri-City division was to be excluded, and that his stock was to be equal to 25 per cent of the value of all of taxpayer's issued and outstanding stock after deducting any value attributable to the Tri-City division.

After Commonwealth was informed by a revenue agent that it may not have issued a sufficient number of shares in exchange for the Tri-City stock in order to be able to deduct Tri-City's full operating loss carryover from Commonwealth's income, Commonwealth, sometime after September 25, 1964, issued an additional 120 shares (which were dated October 19, 1961, the date on the certificates of the 180 shares which had been issued) to Paul, Irwin, Abbot and the trusts for Paul's and Abbot's children. These 120 shares increased the total of taxpayer's outstanding common stock to 1500 shares, which were then held as follows:

Number Percentage Shareholder of Shares of Total

Paul Densen 481 5/6 32.12 Abbot Greene 481 5/6 32.12 Elmer Hertzmark 300 20.00 Irwin Densen 75 5.00 Various parties as trustees of 4 trusts, holding 40 1/3 shares for each trust 161 1/3 10.76 ______ _______ Total 1500 100.00

After trial, the Tax Court determined that the taxpayer was entitled to deduct only 65 percent of Tri-City's pre-merger net operating losses because it failed to meet the criterion of section 382(b) of the Code. First, the court held that the shareholders of the loss corporation did not own 20 percent of the fair market value of taxpayer's outstanding stock "as a result of owning stock of the loss corporation" as required by Section 382(b)(1) (B) because they received only 180 out of taxpayer's 1,380 shares for their share of Tri-City. Second, it held that the taxpayer and the loss corporation were not owned "substantially by the same persons in the same proportion" as required by Section 382(b)(3) because Hertzmark owned 25 percent of the taxpayer but had no interest in Tri-City.

These conclusions were based on the assumption that each share of the taxpayer's stock owned by Hertzmark was equal in value to each share held by the other stockholders. Because taxpayer has not shown that Hertzmark's shares differed in value from those held by the other shareholders of Commonwealth, see footnote 6 in the Tax Court's opinion, 48 T.C. 483, we will affirm the judgment of the Tax Court on Chief Judge Drennen's exhaustive opinion.

KALODNER, Circuit Judge, would affirm for the reasons stated in the Tax Court's opinion.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

COMMONWEALTH CONTAINER CORP. v. C.I.R
(Apr 9, 1968)