From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stevenhagen Co. v. Comm. of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Mar 8, 1977
551 F.2d 106 (6th Cir. 1977)

Opinion

Nos. 76-1265, 76-1266.

Argued February 7, 1977.

Decided March 8, 1977.

Samuel Goldman, Goldman, Greene Tsarnas, Neil B. Greene, Akron, Ohio, for J. F. Stevenhagen Co., and others.

Scott P. Crampton, Gilbert Andrews, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tax Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Leonard J. Henzke, Richard Farber, Meade Whitaker, Chief Counsel, I. R. S., Washington, D.C., for C. I. R.

Appeal from the Tax Court.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, and SILER, District Judge.

Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.


These are consolidated appeals from the United States Tax Court, styled as follows: The J. F. Stevenhagen Co., et al. v. Commissioner, No. 2148-72; John F. Stevenhagen and Patricia Stevenhagen v. Commissioner, No. 2149-72, and Jon-Way Developers, Inc. v. Commissioner, No. 2150-72.

The appellate contention before our court is that certain advances made by two sole and equal shareholders in Jon-Way Developers, Inc., were loans (made directly or through their wholly-owned companies) rather than advances of capital, as determined by the Commissioner. It is also contended that certain payments made by Jon-Way were interest payments on said loans rather than constructive dividends, as determined by the Commissioner.

On review of the opinion of the Tax Court and the records and briefs in this appeal, this court concludes that the Tax Court properly applied the law of this Circuit to the facts in this case. See Austin Village, Inc. v. United States, 432 F.2d 741, 745 (6th Cir. 1970); Berthold v. Commissioner, 404 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir. 1968), and that there were no facts in this record which brought these transactions within the definition of a normal arm's length loan. The record clearly demonstrates that the Tax Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous.

The J. F. Stevenhagen Co. v. Comm'r, Tax Ct.Mem. 1975-198.

The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed for these reasons and others more fully spelled out in the opinion of the Tax Court, filed June 23, 1975.


Summaries of

Stevenhagen Co. v. Comm. of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Mar 8, 1977
551 F.2d 106 (6th Cir. 1977)
Case details for

Stevenhagen Co. v. Comm. of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:THE J. F. STEVENHAGEN CO. ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Mar 8, 1977

Citations

551 F.2d 106 (6th Cir. 1977)

Citing Cases

Hubert Enters., Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Distributions by a corporation are treated as dividends to a shareholder (to the extent of the corporation's…

Hubert Enters., Inc., Subs. v. Commissioner

Distributions by a corporation are treated as dividends to a shareholder (to the extent of the corporation's…