From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Case v. New York Central R.R. Co.
New York Court of Appeals
204 N.E.2d 643, 256 N.Y.S.2d 607, 15 N.Y.2d 150 (1965)
Mahoning Coal Railroad Company (Mahoning) owned railroad lines in Ohio and leased lines in Pennsylvania. New York Central Railroad Company (Central) (defendant) rented railroad lines from Mahoning, paying 40 percent of the gross revenues. Central paid all expenses including property taxes, and Mahoning paid federal income taxes. Mahoning stood to make a profit as long as Central rented Mahoning’s railroad lines. In August 1955, Central and 34 of its subsidiaries sought to take advantage of changes to the tax code by filing consolidated returns in cases in which there was 80 percent of stock ownership of one corporation by another. From 1955 to 1956, Central owned 74 percent of Mahoning’s stock. In 1956 Central proposed to Mahoning’s board of directors to acquire enough stock to reach 80 percent of Mahoning’s stock so that Mahoning could include itself in the consolidated tax. Mahoning’s board of directors was composed entirely of Central officers and employees, except for one individual, and the proposal was unanimously accepted. The tax agreement complied with federal tax laws and was approved by federal tax officers. The tax agreement provided a greater advantage to Central, but there was no loss or disadvantage to Mahoning. From 1957 to 1960, Mahoning utilized Central’s loss and was relieved of paying $3,825,717.43 in income taxes that would have been owed had Mahoning filed a separate tax return. Central received $3,556,992.15 from Mahoning, and $268,725.28 was kept by Mahoning. This amount represented the difference between what Mahoning would have to pay in a separate tax return and what Central received. Minority stockholders of Mahoning (the minority stockholders) (plaintiffs) brought an action to rescind the tax agreement and to compel an accounting for the amount that Central benefited during the three tax years. The minority stockholders argued that Mahoning’s board of directors was controlled by Central, and that as a fiduciary parent corporation, Central could not retain the benefits of the unfair tax agreement. The minority stockholders believed they should have received a larger share of Central’s tax losses, but they could not elaborate on what the share should be. The Special and Trial Term court held that the tax agreement was not unfair. The Appellate Division court held that the tax agreement was unfair and required Central to repay Mahoning a substantial part of Mahoning’s income-tax benefit that had been paid to Central. Central appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Bergan, J.)
What to do next…
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 618,000 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
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 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.