The Board of Trade of the City of Chicago and Subsidiaries - Page 24

                                       - 24 -                                         

          charge for the privilege of trading on the CBOT.  However, we               
          held early on that some kinds of assessments imposed upon                   
          cooperative housing members by the cooperative are nontaxable               
          contributions to capital.  We will look to these cases to find              
          some of the objective factors for our inquiry.14                            
               In 874 Park Ave. v. Commissioner, 23 B.T.A. 400 (1931), a              
          housing cooperative corporation, pursuant to the terms of the               
          proprietary leases, levied assessments on its tenant-shareholders           
          for the purpose of amortizing debt secured by mortgages on its              
          property.  The taxpayer used the assessments to amortize the                
          mortgage debt and credited the payments to its capital stock                
          account.  The Board of Tax Appeals held that these assessments              



          14  Respondent argues that housing cooperative cases are                    
          inapplicable because of "the special relationship between the               
          shareholder-tenants and the cooperative, insofar as the tax                 
          statutes are concerned", citing Eckstein v. United States, 196              
          Ct. Cl. 644, 665, 452 F.2d 1036, 1048 (1971), which concerned               
          whether the payments by tenant-shareholders to be applied to the            
          mortgage were income to the corporation for the purpose of the              
          80-percent requirement of sec. 216(b).  Eckstein refers to cases            
          cited in Lake Forest, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1963-39,             
          on which Eckstein relies, along with Cambridge Apartment Bldg.              
          Corp. v. Commissioner, 44 B.T.A. 617 (1941), and 874 Park Ave. v.           
          Commissioner, 23 B.T.A. 400 (1931).  All this Court said in Lake            
          Forest is that it did not interpret United Grocers, Ltd. v.                 
          United States, 308 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1962); James Hotel Co. v.             
          Commissioner, 39 T.C. 135 (1962), affd. 325 F.2d 280 (10th Cir.             
          1963); Affiliated Govt. Employees Distrib. Co., 37 T.C. 909                 
          (1962), affd. 322 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1963); Federal Employees'              
          Distrib. Co. v. United States, 206 F. Supp. 330 (S.D. Cal.,                 
          1962), judgment revd. 322 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1963), as requiring            
          a different result.                                                         




Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011