No. 117, Docket 21464.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.Argued December 6, 1949.
Decided December 22, 1949.
Watson Washburn, New York City, for petitioner.
Theron Lamar Caudle, Ellis N. Slack, Robert N. Anderson, C. Oliphant, Washington, D.C. (Morton K. Rothschild, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for respondent.
Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, and SWAN and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
The record facts and the Tax Court’s findings and decision appear in that decision as reported in 12 T.C. 324.
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The taxpayer, in 1943 and 1945, was not only the president and treasurer but also the holder of all but a few shares of the company’s stock.[1] In 1943, the company’s directors, in a resolution awarding her $20,000, stated that this sum represented compensation for her services over a five-year period beginning in 1938 during which she had been paid nothing. But in 1945 the company — which obviously she dominated — in an application filed with the Salary Stabilization Unit of the United States Bureau of Internal Revenue (in order to induce that Unit to act as the company desired) specifically stated that she had been paid the $20,000 as pay for services rendered in the single year 1943. We cannot say that the Tax Court was “clearly erroneous” in finding the facts in accordance
Page 914
with that 1945 statement.[2] That finding supports that court’s decision that taxpayer is not entitled to the benefits of Section 107(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, 26 U.S.C.A. § 107(a).[3]
Affirmed.