Jack Surasky v. United States
325 F.2d 191, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3571, 12 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6005 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expenses incurred by an individual stockholder in a proxy contest to change a corporation's management policies are deductible as ordinary and necessary non-business expenses for the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of income under Section 212 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Facts:
- In 1954 and 1955, the taxpayer, Surasky, purchased 4,000 shares of Montgomery Ward & Co. stock for $296,870.20 as a long-term investment.
- Surasky acted on the advice of Louis E. Wolfson, who believed the company's management was underperforming and had a program to improve its value.
- Surasky, Wolfson, and other stockholders formed the Wolfson-Montgomery Ward Stockholders Committee to advocate for changes in management policies, such as opening new stores, increasing dividends, and splitting the stock.
- To achieve these objectives, the Committee initiated a proxy contest to elect a new slate of directors at the 1955 annual meeting.
- Surasky contributed $17,000 to the Committee to help fund the expenses of the proxy campaign.
- Surasky was not an officer or director of the company and did not seek such a position; his sole motive was to increase the value of his stock investment.
- Although the committee failed to win a majority, it succeeded in electing three of its nine nominees to the board, and the company's chairman and president subsequently resigned.
- Following the proxy contest, Montgomery Ward increased its dividend, split its stock, and its profits and stock value increased significantly, resulting in a large capital gain for Surasky upon selling his shares.
Procedural Posture:
- The taxpayer, Surasky, claimed a $17,000 deduction on his 1955 income tax return, which was disallowed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
- Surasky paid the resulting tax deficiency and sued the United States for a refund in the U.S. District Court.
- The district court, sitting without a jury, found that the expenditure was not a deductible expense and entered judgment in favor of the United States.
- Surasky, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a stockholder's contribution to a stockholders' committee engaged in a proxy contest constitute a deductible 'ordinary and necessary' non-business expense for the management of income-producing property under Section 212 of the Internal Revenue Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Tuttle, Chief Judge
Yes. A stockholder's contribution to a stockholders' committee in a proxy fight is a deductible ordinary and necessary expense for the management of property held for the production of income. The trial court applied an improperly rigid standard by requiring a showing of proximate cause and overemphasizing the speculative nature of the expenditure. Section 212 of the Internal Revenue Code was intended to be construed broadly, in pari materia with Section 162 for business expenses. An expense is 'necessary' if it is 'appropriate and helpful,' and a court should be slow to override a taxpayer's business judgment. An expense is 'ordinary' based on context; for an investor, participating in a proxy contest to enhance the value of an investment is an ordinary activity. It is immaterial whether the expenditure aims to prevent a loss or to cause an enhancement of the investment's value; both fall under the management and conservation of income-producing property.
Analysis:
This decision broadens the interpretation of deductible non-business expenses under IRC § 212 for individual investors. By rejecting a strict, common-law 'proximate cause' test, the court established a more flexible standard based on the taxpayer's reasonable, profit-seeking judgment. This ruling provides a key precedent that legitimizes shareholder activism expenses, such as those for proxy contests, as ordinary and necessary costs of managing an investment. The case encourages shareholders to take an active role in corporate governance by making the associated costs potentially tax-deductible, thereby influencing corporate behavior.
Unlock the full brief for Jack Surasky v. United States