Williams v. McGowan

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
152 F.2d 570 (1945)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The sale of a sole proprietorship is not the sale of a single capital asset. For tax purposes, the sale must be comminuted into its constituent parts, and the tax treatment of gain or loss must be determined for each individual asset separately.

Facts:

Williams and Reynolds operated a hardware business as a partnership, with Williams owning a two-thirds interest and Reynolds owning a one-third interest.
The partnership agreement granted the surviving partner the privilege of purchasing the deceased partner's interest.
The partnership operated until Reynolds's death on July 18, 1940.
On September 6, 1940, Williams purchased Reynolds's entire interest from his estate, becoming the sole owner of the business.
On September 17, 1940, Williams sold the entire hardware business as a going concern to the Corning Building Company.
The assets sold included cash, accounts receivable, fixtures, and merchandise inventory.

Procedural Posture:

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed Williams's treatment of the sale on his tax return and assessed a deficiency.
Williams paid the tax deficiency.
Williams filed an action in U.S. District Court (the court of first instance) to recover the taxes paid.
The District Court entered a judgment dismissing Williams's complaint, ruling against him.
Williams, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 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:

For federal income tax purposes, is the sale of an entire sole proprietorship as a going concern treated as the sale of a single, indivisible capital asset, or must it be treated as separate sales of its individual component assets?

Opinions:

Majority - L. Hand, Circuit Judge

No. The sale of a sole proprietorship is not treated as the sale of a single capital asset but must be broken down into its component parts. The Internal Revenue Code itself mandates this approach by defining 'capital assets' broadly and then creating specific exceptions for items that constitute a business, such as inventory and depreciable property used in the trade. The law has been historically reluctant to recognize a business as a single juristic entity separate from its assets. Therefore, Congress plainly intended to 'comminute' the elements of a business for tax purposes, meaning each asset—cash, receivables, fixtures, inventory—must be classified and its gain or loss computed separately as either ordinary or capital.

Dissenting - Frank, Circuit Judge

Yes. The sale of a going concern should be treated as the sale of a single asset because that reflects the reality of the transaction. The parties did not contract for the sale of separate assets in bundles; they agreed to buy and sell 'the hardware business' as a whole, including goodwill. To artificially carve up the transaction into distinct sales of its components does 'violence to the realities' of how business is conducted. The whole of a business is greater than the sum of its parts, a practical aspect that Congress likely had in mind, rather than arcane legal theories about juristic entities.

Analysis:

This decision establishes the foundational 'comminution' or 'fragmentation' rule for the sale of a sole proprietorship in tax law, rejecting an entity-based approach. It has significant practical implications, requiring buyers and sellers to allocate the total purchase price among all the individual assets being transferred. This allocation directly impacts the character of gain or loss (capital vs. ordinary) for the seller and the depreciable basis of assets for the buyer, making it a critical point of negotiation in business sales.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Williams v. McGowan (1945)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature