Mr. Joseph E. P. OO. Bex && St. George, Dear Joe? March 19, 1958 receive your letter Olsen Utah I was glad to my return from California. to Elsie, while we accompanying show any us were baek enthusiasm Incidentally, having lunch of March while there 3 upon I with Bob, that she ear, but she to St. George in our for the prospects of the motor suggested consider did not trip. Regarding the possible change in tax law to permit a closely held corporation to be taxed as a partnership, such a bill was proposed in 1954, which provided that corporations of less than ten stockholders might be considered as a partnere ship and so taxed. The bill failed to pass. Now some senators have suggested such a bill again. So far, however, no limitation of stockholders has been expressed by them, but since it is for small closely held companies, it is doubtful if our fifty-five stockholders would taken fore except qualify. Nevertheless, your point is well 1. The expansion projects in view will escape us unless acted upon now. It is therefore not practical to wait until enough earned surplus will have accumulated to finance the projects. It is also not certain under present eonditions that we will be able to put aside in earned surplus anywhere near the amounts which we have laid aside in the past three years. &. it would not be the plan to increase the number foresee Arms Company. some be $300,000.00 offered would would not incorporated in as put to be tegether, taken by increase. an of Canadian existing Canada investment of the side stockholders considered the to prorata subscribed number For under cireumstances venture, Company which remaining tax the to the that the would any stock stockholders. The Canadian and number of can. require and advantages) I Browning stock Browning Arms Company. Even in the Canadian corporation, increase in treasury stockholders Also, (for any stockholders company would not total would considered be an if there were outthey could not be stockholders in the Browning Arms Company. The ammunition plant would be a separate corporation, in which Browning Arms Company would have an investe ment. The number of stockholders in Browning Arms would not inerease. the reserves I think as it very rapidly as advisable, possible as for you suggest, future to expansion, increase and