TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harry J. Johnson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Harry J. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee

Johnson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 652 F.2d 615 (6th Cir. 1981)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 13, 1981
Docket
No. 79-1619
Judges
Martin, Jones, Celebrezze
Citations
652 F.2d 61547 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 14601981 U.S. App. LEXIS 14357

Opinion

ORDER Harry J. Johnson appeals from a judgment of the Tax Court affirming the Commissioner’s determination of an income tax deficiency.

Johnson Mechanical Contractors, Inc., (JMC) a wholly owned corporation of the taxpayer, disbursed funds to the taxpayer and to his sole proprietorship, H.J. Johnson Enterprises. JMC also made distributions to the taxpayer’s wholly owned corporation, Central Dodge Inc. (Dodge), and to the taxpayer’s son’s business.

The taxpayer treated these disbursements of funds as loans from JMC, which are not taxable. The Commissioner determined that the disbursements were not loans, but were constructive dividends to the taxpayer and assessed income tax deficiencies.

The Tax Court determined that the disbursements made by Johnson Mechanical Contractors, Inc. to the taxpayer and to H.J. Enterprises were loans and not taxable. It also determined that the disbursements made by Johnson Mechanical Contractors, Inc. to Dodge and the taxpayer’s son’s business were constructive dividends which were taxable income to the taxpayer.

In this appeal the taxpayer contends that the Tax Court erred in determining that the disbursements to Dodge and the taxpayer’s son’s business were constructive dividends. We disagree. The Tax Court pointed out that JMC had retained earnings of $122,796 in 1973, but only paid dividends of $50. In addition, the taxpayer failed to produce evidence of the income JMC could expect to receive from Dodge or the taxpayer’s son’s business despite this being the alleged business purpose of the loan. The findings of the Tax Court were not clearly erroneous.

Wilkof v. CIR, 636 F.2d 1139 (6th Cir. 1981).

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1982: 11984: 11985: 219822026peak 1985 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Otis & Edwards, PC55 B.R. 185 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1985)
  2. Richard E. Busch Jr. & Jean N. Busch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue728 F.2d 945 (7th Cir. 1984)
  3. Wasnick v. Commissioner1985 T.C. Memo. 589
  4. Piekos v. Commissioner1982 T.C. Memo. 602

Most recent

  1. Wasnick v. Commissioner1985 T.C. Memo. 589
  2. In re Otis & Edwards, PC55 B.R. 185 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1985)
  3. Richard E. Busch Jr. & Jean N. Busch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue728 F.2d 945 (7th Cir. 1984)
  4. Piekos v. Commissioner1982 T.C. Memo. 602

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Edward & Ruth Wilkof, Ervin & Marie Wilkof v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 636 F.2d 1139 (6th Cir. 1981) 24

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list