Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Bauer v. Commissioner

748 F.2d 1365 (1984)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

Bauer v. Commissioner

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

748 F.2d 1365 (1984)

Facts

Philip Bauer and Phillip Himmelfarb (plaintiffs) were the officers and shareholders of the Federal Meat Company (Federal). Federal was a successful company that leased its plant and equipment used to custom slaughter meat for retailers and wholesalers. Bauer owned 25 percent of Federal’s stock, and Himmelfarb owned 75 percent. Bauer and Himmelfarb made several cash advances to Federal. In exchange for the advances, Federal issued negotiable promissory notes with no fixed dates of repayment that carried 7 to 10 percent interest rates. On its income-tax returns, Federal claimed interest-expense deductions on the interest it paid Bauer and Himmelfarb. Bauer and Himmelfarb included the interest payments, but not the principal repayments, as income on their income-tax returns. The United States Tax Court determined the advances were not loans, as Bauer and Himmelfarb argued, but capital contributions. The tax court looked at Federal’s debt-to-equity ratio and found Federal was undercapitalized, a sign that the advances were capital contributions. In calculating the debt-to-income ratio, the tax court compared the debt Castlewood owed Bauer and Himmelfarb, over $1,850,000, with their initial stock purchase of $20,000. The tax court also found that Himmelfarb and Bauer had advanced money to Federal in proportion with their respective ownership interests, a 3 to 1 ratio. However, the tax court ignored the timing of these advances and the effect of Federal’s repayment to the shareholders; by 1976, the debt Federal owed Himmelfarb and Bauer had a ratio of 11 to 1 rather than 3 to 1. Because these findings suggested that the advances were capital contributions, the court disallowed the interest deductions and reclassified the principal repayments as taxable dividends. Bauer and Himmelfarb appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hug, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership