The Board of Trade of the City of Chicago and Subsidiaries - Page 25

                                       - 25 -                                         

          were nontaxable contributions to capital because they were                  
          provided for in the leases and used for capital purposes.                   
               In Cambridge Apartment Bldg. Corp. v. Commissioner, 44                 
          B.T.A. 617 (1941), the Commissioner determined deficiencies                 
          against a cooperative housing corporation on the ground that                
          assessments collected from the tenant-shareholders for the                  
          ostensible purpose of retiring bonded indebtedness were income to           
          the corporation.  The taxpayer used most of the funds for                   
          operating expenses, but used any excess funds to retire its                 
          bonds.  The Board, relying on 874 Park Ave., held that the excess           
          of assessments used to retire bonds were nontaxable contributions           
          to capital, notwithstanding the lack of an explicit agreement               
          between the corporation and the shareholders or any requirement             
          that the corporation use the excess funds to retire the bonds.              
               Our most recent opinion on the housing coop capital                    
          contribution issue, Concord Village, Inc. v. Commissioner, 65               
          T.C. 142 (1975), is instructive.  The taxpayer was a nonstock               
          not-for-profit housing corporation operated for the benefit of              
          its members, who had proprietary interests.  However, upon the              
          sale of their interests, members were required under the                    
          taxpayer’s bylaws to forfeit to the corporation the part of the             
          sale price that exceeded the FHA transfer value.  We held that              
          the forfeitures were taxable gain to the taxpayer, but that all             
          proceeds of assessments accumulated in the taxpayer’s replacement           





Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011