Berkley Machine Works & Foundry Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee.samuel G. Jones, Sr., and Ursula B. Jones, Appellants, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee.samuel G. Jones, Sr., Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee.samuel G. Jones, Sr., and Estate of Mary Ruth Jones, Deceased, Samuel G. Jones, Administrator, Appellants, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee, 422 F.2d 362 (4th Cir. 1970)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 422 F.2d 362 (4th Cir. 1970) Argued February 5, 1970
Decided March 2, 1970

LeRoy R. Cohen, Jr., Richmond, Va. (Lester I. Bowman, Petersburg, Va., John F. Kelly, Waller R. Staples, III, and Cohen, Kelly, Abeloff, Willey & Bandas, Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellants.

John Townsend, Jr., Atty., Dept. of Justice (Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Jonathan S. Cohen and Leonard J. Henzke, Jr., Attys., Dept. of Justice, on the brief), for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF, WINTER, and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


In these consolidated cases the Tax Court sustained, with modifications, the Commissioner's determination that the corporate taxpayer had improperly deducted as business expenses under 26 U.S.C. § 162 certain expenditures for travel, gifts, entertainment at the corporation's fishing lodge, petty cash disbursements and reimbursements to the controlling stockholder, and wages paid to employees who worked in a furniture workshop on the stockholder's farm.

The Tax Court also sustained the imposition of negligence penalties against the corporation pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6653(a).

Conversely, the Commissioner determined that expenditures disallowed the corporation constituted constructive dividends to its controlling stockholder. 26 U.S.C. § 316(a).

On review we find no error of fact or law, and consequently we affirm on the opinion of the Tax Court. Berkley Machine Works & Foundry Co., TC Memo 1968-278 (Dec. 2, 1968) (Atkins, J.).

Affirmed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.