Court Opinion

ID: 4608238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-11-20 19:42:20.25924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:53:40.723461
License: Public Domain

WILLIS L. GAREY, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.Garey v. CommissionerDocket No. 23546.United States Board of Tax Appeals16 B.T.A. 274; 1929 BTA LEXIS 2603; April 30, 1929, Promulgated *2603  The petitioner fails to establish that the amount of salary paid him pursuant to resolution of the board of directors, for that portion of the taxable year subsequent to his resignation from the company, was a gift and therefore not taxable.  Arthur Rothstein, Esq., and Wilton J. Levitt, Esq., for the petitioner.  W. Frank Gibbs, Esq., for the respondent.  MORRIS*274  This proceeding is for the redetermination of a deficiency in income tax of $2,837.91 for the year 1922 and the sole question for *275  determination is whether the respondent erred in including in gross income the amount of $20,028.08, received by the petitioner from the Royal Baking Powder Co. in that year.  FINDINGS OF FACT.  On April 3, 1922, the petitioner had been employed by the Royal Baking Powder Co. for about 23 years, having served as its president and a member of the board of directors continuously from 1913 until he resigned on the date aforesaid.  On February 6, 1912, the by-laws of that company were amended to read, "Any officer elected or appointed by the Board of Directors may be removed at any time by a resolution of the Board of Directors." On*2604  December 17, 1919, at a meeting of the executive committee of the Royal Baking Power Co., the petitioner's salary was fixed "at the rate per annum" of $27,000, beginning January 1, 1920.  At a meeting of the board of directors of the said Royal Baking Powder Co. held on April 3, 1922, the petitioner tendered the following resignation, which was duly accepted, effective as of that date: Mr. B. C. GRAY, Secretary,Royal Baking Powder Company.  DEAR SIR: I hereby tender my resignation as President and as a Director of Royal Baking Powder Company, to take effect at the pleasure of the Board.  Very truly yours, (Signed) W. L. GAREY.  At the same meeting aforesaid the board voted "that the salary of Mr. Garey for the balance of the calendar year 1922 be paid by this Company," which was at the rate of $27,000 per annum.  The petitioner had no employment contract with the company except the oral understanding that his salary was to be fixed at $27,000 per annum, which was paid to him usually in monthly installments.  The petitioner's resignation was a complete severance from the service of said company, and he was under no obligation to perform further services therefor, *2605  nor did he perform any.  The salary received by the petitioner up to April 3, 1922, was approximately $6,970, and the amount received by him pursuant to the resolution of the board of directors, after his resignation was accepted, is the amount here in dispute, to wit, $20,028.08.  The petitioner did not include that amount in his income-tax return for that year, but did, however, make a note thereon to the effect that said amount was received but was not reported for the reason that it was a gift and, therefore, not taxable.  *276  In compiling its income-tax return for the year 1922 the Royal Baking Power Co. deducted the entire salary paid to the petitioner for the year 1922 under the head of "Compensation of Officers." The respondent has included the $20,028.08 in the petitioner's taxable income for 1922 on the ground that it was not a gift as alleged, but a payment of salary or bonus for services rendered.  OPINION.  MORRIS: Whether the amount of salary paid to the petitioner, pursuant to resolution of the board of directors, for the remaining portion of the taxable year subsequent to his resignation from the company, is taxable income or not, depends upon whether*2606  it was intended to be, and was in fact a gift, as the petitioner contends, or represented a payment of salary or bonus for services rendered, sa the respondent contends.  In ; certiorari denied, , which was an action to recover a payment of tax made under protest, the plaintiff was on July 14, 1919, and had been for some time prior thereto, general superintendent and a member of the board of directors of the American Coal Co., a New Jersey corporation, and it appears that he continued to hold those positions until May 20, 1920; that he received an annual salary of $7,000 plus a bonus of $3,500; that on July 14, 1919, the executive committee of that company passed a resolution directing that a gratuitous appropriation, equal in amount to $3 per share on the outstanding stock of the company, be set aside out of the assets for distribution to certain officers and employees of the company, and that the executive committee be authorized to make such distribution as they deemed wise and proper.  The resolution aforesaid was approved by the board of directors and the said executive committee passed a resolution*2607  directing the appropriation so authorized to be distributed, $35,000 to the plaintiff and certain other amounts to other officers and employees.  Although that company had a large accumulated surplus at the time of passing those resolutions, no distribution was made pursuant thereto at that time.  After the sale of that company's capital stock, with respect to which the facts and circumstances are not essential to the issue here considered, the officers of the company on May 20, 1920, distributed the fund appropriated by the executive committee on July 14, 1919, and the plaintiff received the said $35,000 appropriated to him.  Thereafter, still on May 20, 1920, the plaintiff resigned, and the purchaser of the company's stock took over its management.  The American Coal Co. in its income-tax return for 1920 treated and claimed the sum so distributed to the *277  plaintiff as a salary deduction in the computation of its net taxable income, whereas the plaintiff, on the other hand, excluded the amount from his gross income in the computation of his net taxable income for 1920.  The Commissioner determined that the item of $35,000 should have been included in gross income, and upon*2608  appeal to this Board a decision was rendered against the petitioner.  . The District Court held it to be a gift and therefore not taxable, . Upon appeal the decision of the District Court was reversed.  It will be observed that the plaintiff there, as here, contended that the amount in controversy was a gift and was, therefore, not taxable.  In holding that the amount paid to the plaintiff did not constitute a gift but was taxable income within the meaning of section 213 of the Revenue Act of 1918, the court said, "A gift is a voluntary transfer of his property by one to another, without any consideration or compensation therefor." And it further said, "Although it is held that the motive accompanying a gift is not material, gifts usually proceed from the generosity of the giver; and, where there is any doubt as to the nature of the transaction, the absence of such motive is a pertinent circumstance for consideration.  It is an essential characteristic of a gift, however, that it be a transfer without consideration." Not only must the element of consideration be absent, as the court said in *2609 , in order to constitute a valid gift, but the essential elements of intention and competency of the one making the gift must be present.  As bearing upon the question of intention to make a gift, the court said in , "It nowhere appears that it was treated or referred to as a 'gift,' but, on the contrary, was claimed by the corporation as a salary deduction from its gross income in its income tax return." In the instant case the only testimony relating to the element of intention to make a gift was given by the petitioner himself, which was, in effect, that his resignation from the company was a complete severance from its service, that he was under no further obligation to perform services for it, and that the company was under no obligation to him to pay the amount which he received.  In substance, what the petitioner testifies to is that there was no moral or legal obligation on the part of the company to pay him the amount in question and it, therefore, became a pure gratuity or gift.  The only evidence offered by the petitioner indicating what the intention of the company was, in our opinion, *2610  clearly negatives the inference which the petitioner would have us draw from his testimony.  The resolution of the board of directors voted this amount to the petitioner as a "salary" for the remainder *278  of the calendar year 1922.  Why it did so or what it considered its obligation toward the petitioner to be, we do not know.  In preparing its income-tax return for the year 1922 the company deducted the entire salary paid to the petitioner for the year 1922 under the head of "Compensation of Officers." It will be observed that the board of directors and not the stockholders voted this payment to the petitioner.  In view of the fact that the only evidence flowing from the company itself shows that the money paid the petitioner was regarded by it as a salary or compensation, it is pertinent to determine whether we should, because of the contra testimony of the petitioner, impute an intention to make a gift.  Again quoting from , the court said, "It needs neither argument nor citation of authority to establish the proposition that the directors were without authority to give away the corporate assets, and that for them to make to*2611  several of their members and other persons a gift of a large sum of money from the corporate assets would be neither 'wise' nor 'proper,' and would amount to an illegal misapplication of corporate funds.  We must assume that the directors did not intend such a flagrant violation of their trust." Applying the test of competency in the light of the language just quoted, we feel that we can not impute an intention to do that which if done would constitute an illegal misapplication of corporate funds, but must assume that everything done was regular and according to law.  The petitioner attempts to distinguish , from the instant case in that there the payment under consideration was made to the plaintiff at a time when he was still associated with the company and in its employ, whereas in the instant case the payment was authorized and made after the petitioner had severed all connections with the company.  We do not so read the facts as to arrive at this distinction, for the reason that it appears in that case the officers of the company on May 20, 1920, distributed the fund appropriated by the executive committee, of which sum the plaintiff*2612  received $35,000, and on the same date the plaintiff resigned.  In the instant case the matter of the petitioner's resignation, its acceptance, and the voting of the money to be paid him all transpired on April 3, 1922.  It is true that the money may not have been paid to the petitioner on that date, but that, however, does not give rise to the radical distinction laid down by the petitioner.  A further distinction urged by the petitioner is that the resolution of the executive committee authorized the payment to officers and employees of the company "as they deemed wise and proper," indicating that the distribution was to be made to those officers and *279  employees who in the past had proven themselves worthy of additional compensation.  This, we consider a distinction in fact, but not in principle.  The petitioner also cites , which, in our opinion, is clearly distinguishable in principle from the facts in this case.  There, the stockholders, by resolution, instructed the board of directors to authorize the payment of the sum of money to the taxpayer in recognition of the "able and successful direction" of the company's*2613  affairs in the past, and said resolution used the word "gift" and not "salary" or "compensation." Wherever reference is found to the payment in that case the word "gift" is used.  The payment there was not charged to an expense account but was charged to surplus account indicating a payment out of capital and not out of current expenses.  The payment there was not claimed as a deduction in the computation of the net income of the corporation, as was done in the instant case, but appeared in its reconciliation of changes in surplus as "bonus to J. H. Rosseter." We are satisfied, without further review of authorities or a more detailed discussion of the question that the petitioner has wholly failed to establish that the income in controversy was a gift and, therefore, not taxable, and consequently we must approve the determination of the respondent.  Judgment will be entered for the respondent.