W. L. Mead, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 551 F.2d 121 (6th Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
W. L. Mead, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 551 F.2d 121 (6th Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Central Motor Co. v. United States (ca10, 1978-07-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Central Motor Co. v. United States
10th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
R., 551 F.2d 121, 122 (6th Cir.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Central Motor Company v. United States of America, Central Credit Corporation v. United States of America, Cruces Credit Corporation v. United States of America, Red Rock Investment Company v. United States
10th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
R., 551 F.2d 121, 122 (6th Cir.). 54 Countervailing arguments are advanced by Central Motor to justify the retention of earnings.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
W. L. MEAD, INCORPORATED, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
76-1236.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Mar 11, 1977.
551 F.2d 121
James V. Shindler, Jr., Brown, Baker, Schlageter & Craig, Toledo, Ohio, for petitioner-appellant., Scott P. Crampton, Gilbert E. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, James E. Crowe, Jr., Tax Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Meade Whitaker, Chief Counsel, I.R.S., Washington, D.C., for respondent-appellee.
Weick, Edwards, Lively.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

Appellant W. L. Mead, Inc., a motor freight company, appeals from a ruling of the United States Tax Court which held that in the taxable years 1967 and 1968 it accumulated earnings in excess of the reasonable needs of the business. The Tax Court found the deficiencies to be $65,-476.91 in 1967 and $15,058.37 in 1968.

This court’s reading of the Tax Court’s opinion analyzing taxpayer’s claimed justification for accumulated earnings indicates that it gave both careful consideration to every factual contention and that none of its findings of fact are clearly erroneous. This is particularly true since this case was considered against a background which showed without dispute that the taxpayer corporation was owned outright by W. L. Mead, and that between 1947 to the end of 1966 its earned surplus account had increased from $6,127 to $1,928,080, and that during all of those years, it had paid no dividends in any one year higher than $1,000.

Against this background, we find no need to analyze in detail the Tax Court’s handling of the 26 U.S.C. § 534 (1970) issue, since assuming the burden shifted to the Commissioner, as appellant claims, said burden was amply carried.

The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed for these reasons and those found spelled out in the opinion of the Tax Court reported at T.C. Memo. 1975-215 (June 30, 1975).