271 F. 399 | 3rd Cir. | 1921
The plaintiff corporation brought this action to recover from the defendant, Collector of Internal Revenue, a sum it had paid as an excise tax assessed against it as a munitions manufacturer, under the Act of Congress of September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. 756).
As the controversy. is quite unusual, we shall make a preliminary statement of the.case, omitting for the moment one or two important features but presenting enough to show the question involved, the law out of which it arose, the contentions of the parties, the judgment of the court, and the reasoning that moved it to its conclusion.
The plaintiff corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing machinery at Allentown, Pennsylvania. Late in 1914, S. W. Traylor, its president, indicated to Harry C. Trexler of Allentown, and James Phillips, Jr., of New York, his intention of going abroad in search of munitions contracts for his company. Trexler contributed about $600 and Phillips about $400 to the expenses of the trip upon an oral understanding that in the event a contract were secured and from it profits were earned, they should share in the profits in the proportion their contributions should bear to the expenses of the trip, estimated at about $2,000. In addition Phillips gave Traylor a letter of introduction to a man of position in London, which Traylor used in gaining access to the British War Office.
Traylor was successful, and in January, 1915, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the Government of Great Britain for the manufacture of shells.
The contract provided for payment by the British Government to the plaintiff of $1,000,000 in advance of shell deliveries, on condition, however, that the plaintiff furnish a bond in the same amount to insure the return of the money in the event of the plaintiff’s failure to make deliveries in accordance with the terms of the contract. Satisfactory bonds were furnished by surety companies on the strength of indemnity agreements entered into by the plaintiff with Trexler and Phillips, both men of influence and wealth.
Up to this time the relations of the parties,, in so far as they were contractual, were wholly informal. After these transactions had been concluded,—that is, after the contract had been procured, the requisite indemnity bonds furnished, and an initial payment of $1,000,-000 had been or was ready to be made,—the plaintiff corporation and Trexler and Phillips entered into their first writing. This was an agreement dated February 17, 1915, wherein the parties recited the transactions done and completed, including Traylor’s, trip abroad, Trexler’s and Phillips’ contribution to the expenses thereof, the contract with the Government of Great Britain secured by the plaintiff, the joinder of Trexler and Phillips with the plaintiff in the execution of bonds in connection with the contract, and their agreement with reference to a division of profits when earned. This contract contained, so far as we can discern, no new undertaking on the part of Trexler and Phillips or anything more definite than that they should “give such further assistance by their advice, credit and influence as
“When the net profits accruing from said contract * * * shall have reached the sum of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) and that amount shall be deposited, all profits over and above such sum shall be divided monthly among the parties hereto in the proportions hereinafter specified and upon the completion of the contract and the winding up of the business covered by this agreement, all net profits shall bo divided between the parties hereto as follows:
“James Phillips, Jr., twenty-five per cent. (25%) ; Harry O. Trexler, thirty-cnree and one-third per cent. (33V3%) ; Traylor Engineering & Manufacturing Oompany, forty-one and two-thirds per cent. (41Vs%).”
After entering into this writing, Trexler and Phillips contributed no capital toward the contract and did nothing toward its performance, except in one instance when Trexler obtained from the Bethlehem Steel Company permission to test the shells on its proving grounds.
The contract was fully performed prior to February 16, 1916. On that day the plaintiff made settlement of profits with Trexler and Phillips, substantially as orally agreed upon at the beginning and precisely, we assume, as provided in the written contract later entered into, wherein it paid Trexler $650,000 and, Phillips $487,500—some-thing more than $1,000 for each dollar invested—and retained the balance.
On September 8, 1916, the Congress enacted the “Munition Manufacturers’ Tax Law.” 39 Stat. 780. Those of its provisions pertinent to this case are the following:
“Section 300. That when used in this title—
“The term ‘person’ includes partnerships, corporations, and associations.
“ * * * The first taxable year shall be the twelve months ending December thirty-first, nineteen hundred and sixteen.
“Section 301. That every person manufacturing gunpowder and other explosives * * * shall pay for each taxable year, in addition to the income tax imposed by Title 1, an excise tax of twelve and one-half per centum upon the entire net profits actually received or accrued for said year from the sale or disposition of such articles manufactured within the United States.
“Section 302. That in computing net profits * * * there shall bo allowed as deductions from the gross amount received or accrued for the taxable year from the sale or disposition of such articles manufactured within the United States, the following items: * * • *
“(b) Running expenses including rentals, cost of repairs and maintenance, heat, power, insurance, management, salaries, and wages.”
The plaintiff corporation in due course made a return of its profits in the manufacture of munitions for the year 1916, properly omitting, itfis conceded, profits on deliveries under the contract made prior to
Subsequently the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, regarding the plaintiff corporation, Trexler and Phillips as copartners in respect to the munitions contract, held that the payments to them were in distribution of partnership profits. He therefore disallowed the plaintiff’s ■deduction of profits paid Trexler and Phillips as “running'expenses” and made an additional assessment of $46,706.97. The plaintiff, having paid this sum under protest, and its claim for refund having been rejected, brought this suit to recover the same. New of the facts being in dispute, a jury was waived ánd the case was tried to the court.
At the trial the plaintiff took' the. position that Trexler and Phillips had rendered the plaintiff services in profcuring the contract between it and the Government of Great Britain by contributing to the expenses of Traylor’s trip abroad and by becoming indemnitors with the plaintiff on the required bond; that compensation to Trexler and Phillips for these services was measured by shares in the profits earned under the contract, and that, being compensation for services rendered, - it thereby necessarily became an expense in tire manufacture of -shells deductible under tire statutory heading of “running expenses,” conformably with a ruling of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue published February 24, 1917. There the Commissioner said:
“Commissions or bonuses which were paid prior to January 1, 1916, for obtaining contracts for munitions- and which contracts were fulfilled and ■deliveries made and the munitions paid for after January 1, 1916, would be allowable deductions (in ascertaining net profits for the purpose of the tax) as such necessary expenses as are contemplated by section 302 of the Act referred to.”
Amplifying its position a little further, it is to be noted that the plaintiff is not claiming as an allowable dedüction the money advanced by Trexler and Phillips in aid of its effort to obtain a munitions contract, but it is claiming as an allowable deduction from gross receipts, in the process of ascertaining taxable net profits, profits made on a munitions contract and distributed to others; this on the theory that “net profits actually received or accrued” from the sale of munitions —intended by the statute as the basis of tax assessment—are not all the profits that grow out of or accrue from the manufacture of munitions by the “person” described in the statute, but are only those profits which aré actually received by and which actually accrue to that “person” in his own right; and where, as here, profits are by previous arrangement divided, then only those profits which remain and which constitute the share of the “person manufacturing” are subject to the munitions excise tax.
The defendant, very properly -we think, declined to adopt the theory ■of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the three parties—one •of whom was a corporation—constituted a partnership within the terms
The learned trial judge found as a fact that “the Traylor Company, Phillips and, Trexler were associated together in the manufacture of munitions for the Government of, Great Britain under the said contract” and, disregarding the theory of partnership or association, found against the plaintiff on the ground that the parties had embarked in a joint adventure in the manufacture of munitions for the Government of Great Britain and that the payments made to Trexler and Phillips were not expenses of the business, deductible as running expenses in ascertaining taxable net profits, but were distributions of profits arising from the adventure among those who had engaged in it. Accordingly judgment was entered for the defendant and the plaintiff sued out this writ of error.
Thus it appears that a correct decision of this case rests on the legal relation of the parties. The question of just what that relation was turns, we think, on a distinction, to be carefully drawn, between the case as pleaded and the case as proved.
The plaintiff in its statement of claim frankly admits that the contract when procured was solely between itself and the Government of Great Britain, and that the contract was wholly performed by it at its own expense. The plaintiff further admits that it procured the contract, but, it maintains, it procured it with the aid of Trexler and Phillips in contributing toward the expenses of the trip abroad and in becoming indemnitors in the requisite surety obligations. It contends, therefore, that this aid constituted “services rendered” by Trexler and Phillips “in connection with the procurement of the said contract by plaintiff” and in consideration of these services the plaintiff agreed with Trexler and Phillips that “they should be paid a certain percentage of the profits, if any, wrhic.h might be realized by the plaintiff from the performance of the said contract.”
The plaintiff made certain the limited character of the services rendered by admitting that
“The said Trexler and Phillips performed no other services in connection with the procurement or performance of said contract except as herein above stated, did not contribute any sums of money whatever toward the performance of the said contract, and assumed no responsibility whatever in connection therewith except such liability as they incurred in connection with the above-mentioned guarantee.”
In conclusion the plaintiff claimed the payment of profits to Trexler and Phillips as valid deductions from gross income for the purpose of determining taxable net income and demanded recovery accordingly.
This was the plaintiffs case as to the relation of the parties made by the pleadings.
In December, 1914, Traylor had planned'a trip abroad with the object of obtaining for his company a contract with the British Government for the manufacture of munitions. Such contracts were at the time just making their appearance. Traylor knew nothing about the manner of negotiating for them beyond the obvious necessity of being introduced to the proper authorities. With this in' mind he asked Phillips for a letter of introduction to some one in England through whom he might reach the British War Office. One day at a railroad station Traylor happened to meet Trexler, a personal friend, and casually referred to his trip abroad and its object. Trexler became interested in the project, not in a business way just then, but merely through friendship with Traylor. Being anxious to go abroad with influence standing' behind him and with good names which he could use as references for his corporation, Traylor arranged a meeting between the three and proposed to' Trexler and Phillips that they “take a chance” on his expenses to Europe and promised, in return for their “services,” that his company, if a contract were obtained, would divide profits, if any were made (after deducting costs, overhead, etc.), in the proportion their contributions bore to the expenses of the trip. This was agreed upon. Traylor went abroad with a letter of introduction from Phillips and, obtaining access to the British War Office, began negotiations. In these negotiations, while using Trexler’s name as a reference for his corporation, neither Trexler nor Phillips participated. The contract was obtained, and it was obtained by Traylor alone. Üp to this point the transaction was, we think, precisely what Trexler characterized it, namely, a “grubstake.”
On the relation of the parties as developed by the testimony the learned trial judge, as we have said, found them engaged! in a joint adventure in the manufacture of munitions for the Government of Great Britain. To this finding we subscribe if we may further define the adventure.
The contract between Trexler, Phillips and the plaintiff therefore had to do essentially with a speculative enterprise of hazard. This is evidenced by the fact that performance of this contract depended solely on the outcome of the other contract. In pursuance of its oral and wholly informal terms, Trexler and Phillips advanced inconsiderable sums of money toward the expenses of the one proposing to negotiate
“Every person mannfactnring” munitions (and the only person manufacturing munitions here was the plaintiff corporation) “shall pay * * * an excise tax” (we apprehend for the privilege of engaging in the business of munitions manufacture) “upon the entire net profits actually received or accrued” (not to the “person manufacturing,” but) from the sale and distribution of such articles manufactured.” Section 301.
While the tax is leveled against the “person manufacturing” munitions, it is assessed against net profits arising “from the sale and distribution” of munitions manufactured, ascertained after allowing certain deductions which cover generally the cost of production, including running expenses.
The plaintiff’s contract with the Government of Great Britain was the only one of the two contracts that the Munitions Act was concerned with, for it was only under this contract that munitions were made and profits earned. Of the two parties to that contract the plaintiff was the only one that made and sold munitions—the other bought them. As profits thus made constitute the taxable subject of the Act, evidently the fax is directed against the “person” producing them. If that person chose before creating profits to promise by a side-contract
This we regard to be the true relation of the parties with its legal consequences, arising from two separatef and distinct contracts made with reference to different subjects and for different purposes. As profits distributed under the side-contract in no way entered into the cost of manufacturing' munitions under the main contract, we are of opinion that they cannot be regarded as an expense of manufacture deductible from the gross amount received from sales in ascertaining taxable net profits. .
The judgment below is affirmed.