...

[ lllllulllllllllllllllluliilllllllu~llll :

by user

on
Category: Documents
2

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

[ lllllulllllllllllllllluliilllllllu~llll :
\
BEFORE TI-13 STATE BOARD OF E~~~UALIZATIOK
[ l l lul l l l l l l l uli l l l lu~ll l :
*48-SBE-038’ _~ __.._ -A
i
OF 'IV73 STiiTZ OF CALIFORNIA
In the kktter of the Appeal of
)
HARRY COW
Appearances:
*
For Appellant:
For
Respondent:
Spencer R. Thorpe, Attorney at Law
iir. 1~1, Welsh, assistant Franchise Tax
Comis$.oner; Jal?;es J. Arditto,
Fmnchise Tax Counsel; Milton A. Xuot,
Assistant Tax Counsel
OPIKIOP?
- - ---s
This appezil is rmde pursuailt to Section 18593 of the Revenue
and Taxation Code (formerly Section 19 of the Personal k1C0Ele Ttxc
Act) from the action of the Franchise Tcx Cocmissioner on the
protests of Harry Cohn to proposed assessmnts of o.dditional
personal income tax in the amounts OF $3,817.4I. ad $686.92 for
the years 1937 and 1938, respectively.
e
_
The zssessmnts resulted from the inclusion L?S Appellant's
Dersoml incom of the incor&e fron two trusts created by him on
jL;pril 3, 1937, one for the berlefit of his niece Leonore Cohn and
the other for the benefit of his niece Judith Cohn, each of whom
wzs then EI minor, The corpus of each trust consisted of r! voting
trust certificate representing 2,500 shares of common voting stock
of Colmbia Pictures Corporation. Xt the d;:te of the creation of
the trusts, Appeilmt was President rnd a ljirector of the
Corporation end owned 70,500, about 22 per teat, of its outstanding
320,000 co::rion voting shzres. His brother Jack Cohn, Vice-Presider:
and ziso a Director, owqcd 28,000 of such sharss, snd they, togethe
with A. H. Giunnini, President acrd 3irsctor of 2 bcnk to which the
Corparatioq was indebted, were trustees of a voting trust in which
96 per cent of the tote1 outstnncing voting shcres weri3 deposited,
including, cpp;_:rently, nil shnres herein mentioned. The voting
trust certificates plnced ie the trusts established by Appellant
were issued by this voting trust. Ttlc kppellunt r;lso ownad'stock
purchase wmrmts issued by Colurrbic Pictures Corpomtion which
entitled hiril to subscribe to 24,586 of its cormon shares at
$16.7623 per shme, the option thus given expiring on June 30,
1937. The shares were selling on the market irmediuteig prior to
April 3, 1937‘ct $37 per share.
It nppems that A?pellmt hcd clctuzlly been supporting his
two nieces for sorae tine, even claiming them QS dependents for
income tux purposss although not legally linbla for their support,
and that ha estnblished th? trusts by reason of z desire to provide
for them with the potenti;: profit rasiding in the stock purchase
152
Aprw+
of Harry Cohn
warrants , not wishing to exercise the warrants himself and thus
add to his own Columbia stock holdings? So prompted, he conceived
a pl::*n under which, in addition to the trusts, a corporation to be
known as the JHL Company was to be formed. The entire stock of
this organization was then to be purchased by the trusts and the
corporation, in turn, was to purchase Appellant's warrants and
exercise them. The plan was carried out, the trusts purchasing al.1
the JHL stock for $125,000, Jfll, purchasing the warrants from
Appellant for $202,663) payable in 10 equal annual installments,
and JEZ then converting the warrants into Columbia common, the
latter being made subject to the voting trust. The shares receivec
b;. JHL, selling at t!ie time on the rsarket at $33 per share, had a
value of ~Sll,338.00.
Except for variations occasioned by the difference in bencficiaries, the provisions of the trusts were identioi;l, Zach
named Appellant as sole trustee and as such he was vested with
general power "to manage and control ail of the Trust Estate upon
such terms and conditions as iZ his judgment may seem best and
proper." He was specifically empowered to transfer, lease,
mortgage and otherwise dispose of the trust property, to borrow
money upon such terms "as he, in his sole discretion shall
determine," to sell any property %ithout being liable for any loss
thereby incurred,'? and to invest trust f unds in such securities
as he "in his sole discretion shali deem for the best interests
of the Trust Estate,11 and whether or not such securities are legal
investments for trust funds. Ee was authorized to hold securities
in his own name either as trustee or individually, to apportion
dividends between income and ;Trincipal "as to him may seem just
and fair, lv and to exercise all rights accruing to the trust by
reason of its ownershi? of securities "to the same extent and as
fully as any individual could with respect to properties owned
individually by him." V!:en exercising any voting power, he could
vote for himself or any other person as he saw fit, and could
accept offices or positions to which he mi&t have become eligibie
by reason of the holding by.the estate of any securities. He was
permitted to sell the original trust assets an& use the proceeds
to purchase the stock of the JHL Company; and, 2s trustor or
trustee, might sell the lc?tter any stock, or voting trust certificates representing the stock, of Columbia Pictures Corporation, or
any warrants to acquire such stock or certificates, at such price
nnd upon such terms and conditions as he in his sole discretion
might determine, It was provided that "any such sale shall be vali
and shall not be subject to di szffirmznce by reason of any of the
fiduciary relationships. , .)) In addition, Appellant could enter
into any other trcnsnction with the trust or JEL Company affecting
the trust, such transaction to be valid and impregnable to attack
if ratified and approved by Judi-th Gohn and Leonore Cohn, or the
survivor, Indeed, any act of Apq:ellant as trustee was valid
against all persons, including the beneficinrie.s, if authorized,
ratified or approved by Judith and Leonore, or the survivor. He
was furthermore not liable for any error of judgment in administering the trust, but was liable for his own VJilfUl neglect or default
or for acts in bad faith.
153
A-Jpeal
of Harry
..--
Cohn
The net income of each trust was payable to the beneficiary
for life and if she died without issue to her sister for her
lifetime. The income was to be accumulated, however, for the
beneficiary until she reached the age of twenty-five or married,
with provision for payment or application by the trustee, in his
sole discretion, for the use or benefit of the beneficiary of
"any Tortion of such inccme reasonably necessary or desirable for
her support, care, maintenance, or education." dach trust terminated upon the beneficiary's death if she left any issue; if she
did not and was survived by her sister, then upon the death of her
sister. Thereupon, the corpus was to be distributed to the beneficiary's issue; or if none, to any issue of the sister; and if
none of the latter, to the heirs-at-law of the survivor. Each
trust also Frovided that it might be revoked, changed, or amended
by written instrument signed by AlJpellant and the beneficiary and
filed with the trustee.
There are two major questions presented here for consideration: (1) whether by reason oZ the fact that the trust income
might be used by Appellant as trustee for the support of his
nieces, whose support he had assumed but for which he was not
legally liable, Appellant is taxable on such income under the holding in IIelverinp, v. Stuart, 317 U.S. 154, and, v/e assume, a similar
decision of'our Supreme Court in i3orroughs v. KcColgan, 21 Cal. 2d
481; and (2) whether he is taxabie'thereon on the baxs of the
principle laid down inI-Ielvering;
v. Cliffo,rd, 309 U.S. 331.
.,
It was held in the Stuart case that if the income of a trust
created for the trustor's mi.r children can in his discretion as
trustee be used for tlie support of the children, whether actually
so u.sGd or vithhei6 and accumulated, such income is taxable to the
trustor under Section 167 of the Federal Internal Revenue Code,
v:hich Trovides for taxing trust income to the trustor if it vV~?ay,
in the discretion of the grantor or of any person not having a
substantial adverse interest in the 6;~
_,position of the income, be
distributed to the grar~tor.v? The decision in tAa _8orroughs case
was similar, ths Court there considering compartii;;l e lcngutlge in
Section 12(h) of tile Caiifornia Personal Income '1%x Act.
The Commissionar contends, in effect, that the rule of these
cases is applicable hero since Appellant had assumed the obiigation
of and actually had been supporting his niecesz and because the
trusts give him the right to use trusi income in implementation of
such obligation. Re does not claim, however that there was any
lee;al obligation on Appellant's 2art to provide such support, nor
is %ore any evidence in the record that that was the case.
In view of the lack of sus,~ a legal obligation, it soems to
that the matter at hand cannot come ?&thin the scope of that
rule, which 7 as we understand it, prosupposcs or is conditioned
upon the existence of a parental or marital obligation to su.nport
enforceable by law and which may legally be satisfied with trust
income.
US
Coming now to the question relative to the Clifford case, we
find that the United States Supreme Court held therein that tho
154
AppZCl Of HCilTg COtn
.-
technicalities of the law of trusts will be ignored to the extent
of trec?tinG o. trustor- trustee of a family trust as in substance the
owner of the corpus in his individual capacity for the purpose of
Section 22(a) of the Federal Internal Revenue Code if it apnenrs
that despite the creation of the trust he has not in fact reiinquished his economic dominion and control over the trust principal.
Section 22(a), which is subst~~+~~
L,L(J~dlly the SRKe as Section 712) of
the Personal Income Tax Act (now Section 17101 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code), provides that sfgross incoi;lef9 inciudes 99g:c?inrs,
profits and income.
. growing out of the ownership or use of or
interest in. . , proierty.
)) It was found in the Clifford
case that the trustor-trust:e'tiere involved remained in subs?%ce
t.he owner of the corpus because (1) the trust, being for five,
years, was of short duration; (2) the corpus would revert to the
trustor on the termin~:tion of the trust; (3) the trustor9s deRendent wife was the beneficiary; and (4) broad powers of management
and control were vested in the trustor in his capacity as trustee.
The Court stated
.We have at best ~'1 temporary reallocation of
ii&me within Fin intimate family group. Since the
income rerr;;:ins in the family and since the husband
rctuins control over the'investment he has rather
complete assurance that the trust will not affect
any substzntial chsnge in his economic position.)'
?I
309 U.S. at 334,
The Court went on to say that "no one fnct is normally
decisive but that all considerations r,nd circumstances of the kind
we have mentioned are reievznt to tile question of"ownership and
are appropriate foundations for findings on that issue.9T 309 U.S.
at 336. In c ddition, after no’;& tkt t h e i s s u e as t40 the tnxation of the trust income to the truetor under Section 22(n) of the
Internal Revenue Cod e is whether the trustor ))rnay still be treated
as the owner of the corpus, )' the Court further said
I1
,111 absence of more precise standards supplied
bi itntuta or appropriate regulations answer to that
question must depend on r-n analysis 0;' the terms of
the trust end all the circumstances ::ttenCant on its
creation end operation.9t 309 U.S. at 334.
We are of the opinion that the instant situation is not within
the purview of the Clifford Rule. In arguing for the taxability-of
the trust income to Appellant, the CorLrcissioner mentions the broad
trustee
powers of m::inagement nnd control which Appellnnt may
.
exercise,
For the most psrt, however, they appear to be of i: kind
ordinarily granted a trustee so thr;t he may function to the advantage end for the best interests of the trust, and as such they
alone will not support a finding of retained control for the
trustor9s individual benefit of a chzrocter sufficient to call for
an applica tion of tho Clifford Rule, Iu__
Jones v. P.~orris, 122 Fed. 2d
6; Armstrong v. Commi.ssioner, 143 ~cc!.. 26 700; T-k.1.I v. Commissioner,
150 Fed. '2d 30!+; Unitea Str:tes 8. @OTSS 159 Fed.d 142.
stated by Nossapiz~??jis iz,ork cntfim' "Trust Admini,strc!tion and
Texation,)) Vol. 2, Sec. 666, p:~gas 149-150
AS
155
Appeal qf' ,Harry Cohn
"It 8eems clear, however, that the fact that
the grantor is also trustee or may remove and
appoint trustees or retains broad power of
management does not, independently of other
circumstances, render him liable for the tax
on the income. Such reservations are consistent
with -_
bona _I-fide trust arrangements,'r
The Corz~!issioner u3.k claims that the pov:ers vested in
Appellant to vote any stock owned by the trusts :nd to accept
offices in the issuing corporations, coupled with his presidency
of Columbia Pictures Corporation and his ownership of stocktherein,
which he can vote through the voting trust along with the stock
covered by the voting certificates constituting the trust corpus
of the 3HL Company, manifest a'retention of the type of control
contemplated by the Clifford case. In this also we do not concur.
For one thing, even if we grant that Appellant could exercise
voting control through the voting trust, as to vjhich we are dubious
in view of the fact that there are two other voting trustees with
equal voice, such control, while a relevant circumstance and
soz;ething definitely to be tcken into consideration, is by no means
decisive but is merely to be v;eighed in conjunction with all other
factors bearing on the issue, Xohnstamm v. Pedrick_, 153 Fed. 2d
507; Cushman v. Commissioner 153 'F-d 510; United States V.
,I!!orss
159 'Fed. 2?jirG!isieen v. Commissioner, 143 Fed.!! 805;
EI1ller v. Commissioner, m%Z. 2dY9; $iison v, ComM_ssioner,
rt. den. 326 U.S. 721; Chertoff Tf.-rcom.missioner,
148 Fed. 2d 81
160 Fed. 2d 691; 2
Shaper0 v. Corxissioner
d
165 Fed.
211.
Moreover, as stated i1:~"~ushman v. Commis&.oner , supra, at page 514,
"the power to vote the ~~hali: x-ust mcy not be exercised by
the trustee for his own pur~osi:s.~~
In the P~iller, i<;"lisog 2nd Funsten cases, supra, the Clifford
Rule was sppEa?%n each to submxe trustor to tax on the trust
income on the basis of a combination of circumstances which
included voting or business control, trustee powers of a broad
and- unconventional character, and a i~ower so to control the disposition of the incoir;e, either by an ex,?ress provision for its
withholding or accur:&ction or specific zuthoritg to shift it to
another th:ar?, the primry beneficiary, that the latter might never
enjoy it during his lifetime. A similar, or nearly similar,
combination vii.11 be found in almost all the cases in which voting
or business control, along with other factors, hcs apparently
been of some importance in leadine to the conclusion that the
trust income involved was taxable to the trustor under the
Clifford doctrine.
Here, there is nothing in either of the trust instruments
involved, aside from possible voting control, which czn (even
conceivably present a situation anrr;lagous to that considered in
the Miller, Edison and Funsten cases. As we have stated, the
trustee powers of G conventional nature. Furthermore, the
mere power in Appellant to withhold trust income until a beneficiary marries or reaches the i';ge OF twenty-five \Nill not in all
probability result in keeping the income fr.o,m the beneficiary.
The power iS so limited that the beneficiary may reasonably expect
to receive and enjoy. the inco1z within. her lifetime, It may be
noted additionally that there is no evidence indicating that,
Appellant ever used his voting control or trustee powers for his
own personal ends,
The ,Commissioner also argues that the corpus of each trust
might’ revest in, Ap;pelJ.ant8 with the consent of the beneficiary,
who, according $0 the Commissioner, is wit,hout a substantial
adverse interest, and t.hat, therefore, the income is tnxuble to
ApFeilant under Section 12(g) of the Personal Income Tax Act (now
Section 18172. of the iievedue and Taxation Code), which provides
that if title tb the trust corpus may revest in the gra!~t or v:i,.thout the consent, of an.8 Ferson having a substantial adverse interesin any yaY;t of the corpus or trust iccorilej and the revesting is
not contingent ugon the death of the beneficiary, the income is
taxs.ble t o ihe trustor, $e believe , however, that, the Com~issionepremise t.hat the beneficiary has not a substantial adverse interes
is very obviously erroneous in view of the fact that a revocation
would clearly deprive her of valuable property rights in the trust
income and corpus. Commissioner v. Katz, 139 Fed. 2d 10’7, 110;
0 R IlIi3g
t
Pursuant to the views of the Board on file in this proceeding,
and good cause ap>>esri.ng therefor,
-v-‘
”
IT -J-s :;aiJJ’By O’r;:Eyl<E‘ii, di~~QG~jj &T> DECLTlxEfi,
pursuant ‘60
Section liss$5 of the Revenue and Texation Code, that. the action of
Ches. J. KcColgan, Pranckis53 TL .:; Cor3r.L ssioner , on the protests of
0 f additional personal income
Xarry Cohn’to p r o p o s e d ~~ee~fpe~~~s
_,
tax in the amounts of $3,81’/.L+l and ~,~686.9’2 for the years 1 9 3 7
and 1938, respectively, be and the same is hereby reversed.
Done at Sacrz.mento, California , this 15t.h day of December,
1948, by the State Eoard of ~qualizet ion.
Bonelli, Chairman
J . i. Seawell, Kember
J. K. Quinn, Kember
Gee. R. Reilly, niember
Thomas 3. Kuc.hel, Member
V;k,?. G.
ATTEST :
Dixwell L. Pierce, Secretary
157
Fly UP