Gamman v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, prorata advances by the two equal stockholders of a corporation far in excess of their contributions to the corporation for stock were placed at the risk of the business and had the characteristics of equity capital.
Read the full summary
Held, prorata advances by the two equal stockholders of a corporation far in excess of their contributions to the corporation for stock were placed at the risk of the business and had the characteristics of equity capital. Held, further, the notes issued by the corporation to the stockholders as evidence of their advances to the corporation did not constitute a second class of stock so as to disqualify the corporation as an electing "small business corporation" under subchapter S of the 1954 Code.
1Opinion of the Court
W. C. Gamman and Harriett Gamman, et. al., 1 Petitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Gamman v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 5268-64, 3763-65, 5270-64, 3877-65
United States Tax Court
46 T.C. 1; 1966 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 121;
April 4, 1966, Filed
Decisions will be entered under Rule 50 in docket Nos. 5268-64, 5270-64, and 3877-65.
Decision will be entered for the petitioners in docket No. 3763-65.
Held, prorata advances by the two equal stockholders of a corporation far in excess of their contributions to the corporation for stock were placed at the risk of the business and had the…
Also in this document: Concurrence · Withey; Concurrence · Dawson; Dissent.
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Pepper v. LittonSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Commissioner v. South Texas Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Brewster v. GageSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.