1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*22
The owners of two vessels agreed to transfer them to the X corporation. As required by the agreement and as an incident to the transfer the owners made expenditures for needed repairs to the vessels.
45 T.C. 111">*111 The Commissioner determined a deficiency in income tax in the amount of $ 46,514.10 for the year 1957.
The sole issue is whether amounts, totaling $ 57,567, paid by the Oliver Transportation Co., 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*23 a partnership, during the year 1957 represented ordinary and necessary business expenses or capital expenditures.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and, as stipulated, are incorporated herein by reference.
Ritner K. Walling and Margaret C. Walling, husband and wife, filed a joint Federal income tax return for the year 1957 with the district director of internal revenue at Philadelphia, Pa. Ritner K. Walling died on October 17, 1958. Margaret C. Walling, Ritner E. Walling, and J. Wesley McWilliams are the duly qualified and acting executors of his will.
During the year 1957 Ritner K. Walling and Margaret C. Walling were the two members of a partnership carrying on a waterborne commerce business under the name of the Oliver Transportation Co. (hereinafter referred to as the company), with principal offices at 842 Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Building, Philadelphia, Pa. The share of each partner in the partnership during 1957 was as follows:
Ritner K. Walling | 37.62 percent |
Margaret C. Walling | 62.38 percent |
45 T.C. 111">*112 The 1957 partnership was created by an agreement dated January 1, 1957. It provided, in part, that a "Limited Partnership Agreement between1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*24 the parties dated April 15, 1937, as amended from time to time, be and the same hereby is cancelled as of December 31, 1956."
The company filed a partnership return of income for the year 1957 with the district director of internal revenue, Philadelphia, Pa. In their joint return for that year the two partners reported the following net income from the partnership:
Ritner K. Walling | $ 49,519.95 |
Margaret C. Walling | 82,112.04 |
131,631.99 |
The waterborne commerce business of the company was the carriage of cargo, principally coal, by means of barges which it owned and operated. These vessels were used in river, harbor, and deepwater transportation. They required the services of tugs and their crews, which were hired from third parties by the company.
As of January 1, 1957, the company owned and operated 13 steel barges and 4 wooden barges in river or harbor trade in the port of Philadelphia. It also owned and operated two steel barges, the
On May 1, 1957, the Oliver Transportation Corp. was organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with an authorized capital stock consisting of 7,500 shares of common stock having a par value of $ 100 per share, for the purpose of carrying on waterborne commerce in the form of deepwater barge transportation theretofore carried on by the company. The first meeting of the board of directors of the corporation was held on May 29, 1957. At that meeting resolutions were adopted that the corporation accept an offer of Ritner K. Walling and Margaret C. Walling to transfer to it the barges
On May 29, 1957, the following agreement was entered into between the company and the Oliver Transportation Corp.:
45 T.C. 111">*113 THE OLIVER TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION
AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY
An Agreement made this 29th day of May, 1957, 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*26 by Ritner K. Walling and Margaret C. Walling, co-partners trading as THE OLIVER TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (hereinafter called the "transferors") of the first part, and THE OLIVER TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, a corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey (hereinafter called the "Corporation") of the second part.
Whereas the transferors are the owners of the property and rights hereinafter described; and
Whereas the Corporation has been duly organized with an authorized capital stock of $ 750,000.00; and
Whereas the Board of Directors of the Corporation have ascertained, adjudged and declared that the said property and rights are of a fair value of at least $ 600,000.00 when required repairs have been made to the barges included in the sale, and that the acquisition thereof is necessary for the business of the Corporation and to carry out its contemplated objects:
Now, Therefore, This agreement witnesseth:
Two ocean going steel barges, namely:
1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*27 the
the
free and clear of any encumbrances, and in a seagoing and operational condition with current Coast Guard certificates and American Bureau of Shipping Load Line certificates, and those two certain contracts dated February 6, 1957, with, respectively Winslow-Knickerbocker Coal Company New Jersey and Barrows & Company, Incorporated, involving the operation of said barges, In Exchange For 6,000 shares of the capital stock of this Corporation of the par value of One Hundred Dollars ($ 100.00) each.
To | Shares |
Ritner K. Walling | 2255 |
Margaret C. Walling | 3743 |
Donald W. Fuller | 1 |
J. Wesley McWilliams | 1 |
IV. The delivery of the certificates for1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*28 said shares to the above named parties and their respective receipts for the same shall be a full discharge of each of the parties hereto to the extent thereof.
45 T.C. 111">*114 Witness the hands and seals of the transferors and the corporate seal of the Corporation, attested by the signatures of its officers thereunto duly authorized, the day and year first above written.
(S) Ritner K. Walling [L.S.]
(S) Margaret C. Walling [L.S.]
The Oliver Transportation Company
In presence of:
(S) Anne M. Brown
The Oliver Transportation Corporation
[Corporate Seal]
By (S) Margaret C. Walling
Attest: (S) Mary C. Harlan
The following journal entry was made on the books of the Oliver Transportation Corp.
May 29, 1957 | ||
Fixed assets | $ 600,000 | |
Capital stock issued | $ 600,000 |
To record1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*29 the acquisition of the barges "Mamei" and "Darien" thru the issuance of 6,000 shares of capital Stock, Par Value $ 100.
The 6,000 shares of its stock were issued under date of May 29, 1957, as follows:
Number of | Percentage | |
shares | ||
Ritner K. Walling | 2,255 | 37.60 |
Margaret C. Walling | 3,743 | 62.36 |
Donald W. Fuller | 1 | .02 |
J. Wesley McWilliams | 1 | .02 |
During the year 1957 these four individuals and Ritner E. Walling were the members of the board of directors of the Oliver Transportation Corp.
The contracts of coal carriage between the company and the Winslow-Knickerbocker Coal Co. and Barrows & Co., dated February 6, 1957, mentioned in the May 29, 1957, agreement, were assigned by the company to the Oliver Transportation Corp. on July 11, 1957.
Vessels operating in the type of deepwater and coastwise transportation engaged in by the
Upon the basis of inspections, or requests by owners for certification, duly authorized officers of the U.S. Coast Guard approve the nature and extent1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*31 of work done or to be done on barges, or they may prescribe additional work to be done, in order to put ships in an ordinarily efficient operating condition so such vessels may secure effective U.S. Coast Guard certification.
A vessel engaged in deepwater and coastwise transportation is also required to have a loadline certificate from officials of the American Bureau of Shipping, which operates under the supervision of certain officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. This certificate is issued by those officials after a survey and after parts or fittings of a vessel, found to be deficient on the survey, are replaced or repaired. The loadline and its certification is designed to protect a vessel and its cargo from overloading beyond the loadline fixed and certified. Although loadline and Coast Guard inspection certificates may be issued for more than 1 year, a vessel is subject to U.S. Coast Guard and American Bureau of Shipping inspection when it enters a shipyard.
The only work authorized to be done while a vessel is in drydock is that provided by written contract, referred to as a job order, and such contract must include work prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard or by the American Bureau1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*32 of Shipping.
In the course of the operation of the barges
45 T.C. 111">*116 In order to acquire the "current" Coast Guard and loadline certificates which the company had to "turn over" to the Oliver Transportation Corp. under the terms of the May 29, 1957, agreement, the
The
The
During the periods in 1957 when the
The cost of the work done on the
After the work on the
After the work on the
The amounts expended by the company for work on the
Year | Darien | Mamei | Total |
1955 | $ 15,598.10 | $ 19,051.84 | $ 34,649.94 |
1956 | 22,710.91 | 31,381.76 | 54,092.67 |
The company claimed deductions for these expenditures as "repairs" in partnership returns of income filed for the years 1955 and 1956.
In computing distributable partnership net income of the company for the year 1957, in the partnership return of income filed for that year, a deduction of $ 57,5671965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*36 was claimed as "repairs" on the
Barge | Amount involved |
Darien | $ 30,093.00 |
Mamei | 27,474.00 |
57,567.00 |
The total amount claimed as a deduction for repairs in the 1957 partnership return of the company was $ 122,310.20.
The Commissioner determined that the claimed deduction of $ 122,310.20 was unallowable in part and increased distributable partnership net income of the company and the petitioners' net income by the amount of $ 57,567 for 1957. The following explanation was given for this adjustment:
1. The deduction for repairs in the amount of $ 122,310.20 has been disallowed to the extent of $ 57,567.00, which sum was not incurred as an ordinary and necessary expense of the partnership but rather for the benefit of a corporation known as The Oliver Transportation Corporation, and furthermore, the said sum constitutes a capital expenditure so that in either event it is not deductible (
OPINION
The sole question for decision is whether the amounts totaling $ 57,567, expended by the Oliver Transportation Co. during the year 1957 represented deductible ordinary and necessary1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*37 business expenses or nondeductible capital expenditures.
We agree1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*38 with petitioners that expenditures for work similar to that done on the
1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22">*41
1. (b) The head of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating also shall require the Coast Guard to inspect, before the same shall be put into service and at least once in every two years thereafter, the hull and equipment of every seagoing barge of one hundred gross tons or over, not carrying passengers; and to determine to its satisfaction that such barge is of a structure suitable for the service in which she is to be employed, has suitable accommodations for the crew, if manned, and is in a condition to warrant the belief that she may be used in navigation with safety to life.↩
2. This conclusion is confirmed by the practical consequences resulting therefrom. Suppose a taxpayer had property requiring $ 100,000 repairs which he could sell for $ 900,000 "as is." If he should contract to sell it, agreeing to make the repairs himself prior to transferring title, one would expect that in the normal course the parties would negotiate a sales price of $ 1 million. The $ 100,000 paid out by the owner for such repairs would be treated as capital expenditures and would be reflected in the computation of his gain or loss upon the sale. His actual gain or loss would thus remain the same, and he would obtain appropriate tax benefit for such expenditures made in connection with that capital transaction. But if he were allowed to deduct those expenditures from ordinary income as business expenses, there would be a distortion that Congress plainly could not have intended, for the $ 100,000 increase in sales price would be accorded the favorable capital gains treatment whereas the $ 100,000 deduction from ordinary income would result in a net unintended tax benefit growing out of the transaction as a whole.
We note, of course, that the gain on the transfer of the two vessels herein was treated as nonrecognizable, but petitioners have not made any argument based upon this consideration. The point in this respect is that the expenditures represent an addition to basis that will ultimately be reflected upon any subsequent sale or other taxable disposition.↩
3. Indeed, in view of the fact that the taxpayer was a corporation, nothing turned upon whether the loss was a capital loss, since under the applicable statute at that time capital gains and losses of corporations were treated in the same manner as ordinary gains and losses. And even as to individual taxpayers, limitation upon deductions of capital losses did not appear in the law until the Revenue Act of 1924, after the years involved in the