Case: G. M. BASFORD CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: G. M. Basford Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1932-06-06
Docket Number: No. K-14
Citation: 75 Ct. Cl. 406
Volume: 75
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: G. M. BASFORD CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: Williams, Judge; LittletoN, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.
Pages: 406–412

Head Matter:
G. M. BASFORD CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. K-14.
Decided June 6, 1932]
Mr. Donald Horne for the plaintiff.
Mr. Lisle A. Smith, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Charles B. Rugg for the defendant.

Opinion:
GheeN, Judge,
delivered the opinion:
The plaintiff brings this suit to recover $10,448.09 with interest which it alleges it overpaid on its income taxes for the years 1919, 1920, and 1921. The claim upon which plaintiff's case is based is that it is entitled to be classified as a personal-service corporation under section 200 of the revenue acts of 1918 and 1921. Under such a classification the plaintiff should not have been taxed as a corporation, but the individual stockholders would be taxed in the same manner as members in a partnership.
During the years involved, the plaintiff was an advertising service agency. Its capital stock consisted of 1,000 fully paid up shares of the par value of $100 each, of which George M. Basford, as president, owned 510 shares, and 490 shares were distributed among fourteen other stockholders.
George M. Basford, president of the plaintiff corporation, devoted all of his time to the business and was in complete charge of it personally. None of the other stockholders took an active part in the business. The plaintiff had no capital and appears to have derived the money necessary to carry on its business by receiving payments in advance on advertising contracts. It had no Government contract, never traded as a principal, and was a domestic corporation. The' evidence shows that it had valuable contracts for advertising, and its tax returns showed it received a considerable amount of income from its business which consisted principally of rendering personal service. The concern had a number of employees, but its earnings appear to be due largely to the activities and managment of its president, George M. Basford, and the evidence fails to show that any of the other owners or stockholders took any part or had anything to do with the business, although they held 49 per cent of the stock. Among the minority stockholders, there was one who held 80 shares and five who held 11 shares of stock. Section 200 of the revenue act of 1918 provides:
" The term ' personal service corporation ' means a corporation whose income is to be ascribed primarily to the activities of the principal owners or stockholders who are themselves regularly engaged in the active conduct of the affairs of the corporation
Under the facts in the case we do not think that plaintiff came within this requirement and therefore hold that it was not a personal-service corporation.
It follows that plaintiff's petition must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
Williams, Judge; LittletoN, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.
Whalet, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.