-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The Mysterious Aero Clothing Tanning Co. Contract 3061P
- Thread starter mulceber
- Start date
bseal
Well-Known Member
This is all that I have to bequeath you:
Good Wear Leather Coat Company — Sale Acme 1937 Type A-2 Jacket
www.goodwearleather.com
Jennison
Well-Known Member
I’m with Jan on this one. Does anyone know of any extant original info on this contract? I’d read somewhere on the Forum that Gary owned 2 examples. In that same thread, someone even mentioned an example pictured in his book, although I doubt Jan would be asking if the latter were true.
The story behind Aero Clothing & Tanning in Brooklyn that made the 3061P is both interesting and confusing in that a woman started the concern and managed to procure a govt contract…in 1936/37(!). Supposedly, she bankrolled her husband’s company. the Aero Leather Clothing Co of Beacon NY, with funds earned from her Brooklyn concern (simply because he and his partners didn’t have the funds to do so). That begs 4 questions: 1) where did she get the initial capital to start her own company: 2) why didn’t she just take that initial capital and start a company with her husband? He’d been involved with Werber and must’ve known the business and was certainly focused on it; 3) if the Aero Leather and Tanning Co. was successful enough to bankroll another company, why did it shut down when Aero of Beacon was formed; and finally, 4) if she’d been so successful—again, as a woman managing to procure a govt contract— why wasn’t she directly involved with Aero of Beacon as well?
The story behind Aero Clothing & Tanning in Brooklyn that made the 3061P is both interesting and confusing in that a woman started the concern and managed to procure a govt contract…in 1936/37(!). Supposedly, she bankrolled her husband’s company. the Aero Leather Clothing Co of Beacon NY, with funds earned from her Brooklyn concern (simply because he and his partners didn’t have the funds to do so). That begs 4 questions: 1) where did she get the initial capital to start her own company: 2) why didn’t she just take that initial capital and start a company with her husband? He’d been involved with Werber and must’ve known the business and was certainly focused on it; 3) if the Aero Leather and Tanning Co. was successful enough to bankroll another company, why did it shut down when Aero of Beacon was formed; and finally, 4) if she’d been so successful—again, as a woman managing to procure a govt contract— why wasn’t she directly involved with Aero of Beacon as well?
Last edited:
mulceber
Moderator
Full disclosure, I was (am) looking for photos to put in the new A-2 jacket project. No luck yet. I’ve no doubt that the jacket in Eastman’s book is indeed the ACT contract, but I’m not gonna use the photos from Eastman’s book for my project. It’s probably legal, since this isn’t monetized, so fair use would apply, but it feels like it would be a scummy thing to do.
33-1729
Well-Known Member
Good questions.
About the survivors: I knew about the 37-3061P in Mr Eastman's book and when I contact John Chapman about making one for me he said an example in much better condition was sold on eBay years ago and Mr Eastman purchased it. So, Mr Eastman has the two known survivors. (John is still unhappy he didn't download all the photos from eBay.)
About ACT vs Aero (too keep them separate): I posted a link to this site for tax documents used in Court to address "tax deficiencies" for Aero Leather Clothing Co., Inc. and it discussed ACT too. Simply bankrolling is a small part of it (to get way in the weeds read the Court documents). It's clear from the number of loans/payments to her husband and Aero that she was much better off than her husband, but the money alone won't be enough to start up a new business given the competition (Werber had a lock on the first ones as noted in one Court document). What really mattered was making contacts to get the contracts and the Court documents state
During the period December 1936 to May 1937, Emily Kramer, wife of Louis Kramer, advanced, for the purpose of the business, the amount of $6,000 and they agreed that she would be made a partner later on, if and when the business prospered. At first the business was carried on in Mrs. Kramer's name. It was she who obtained the contract from the government. She alone had the financial responsibility to provide the performance bond that the government required before it would give the contract. Liebmann rented a loft in Brooklyn and they put up a small plant with 10 or 12 machines. They had no credit so they had to pay cash. Mrs. Kramer paid for the machines, bought leather and trimmings and gave them checks for rent and payroll. When the government repaid her for her original expenditures, she paid the tanning company and other expenses owing and gave her husband a certified check for the balance, $4,000. Later she repaid two small loans. Without this $4,000 they could not have started to operate. In all, Mrs. Kramer put $6,000 into the business to start it off. Of the amount of $6,000 which she advanced she was later repaid the amount of $2,000 each by Abe Wolkowitz and John E. Liebmann.
Later the document speaks about how she continued to help Aero. The critical point, besides the money, is she made the contacts and negotiated the government contracts. In short, she made it happen, but Government contracts are lucrative and a dog-eat-dog business. She may have bowed out simply because it's hard work and she didn't have to (her family was well-to-do). Changing the company name cuts all ties, especially if it's moved sixty mile away, and shows it's a new venture (her husbands).
Jennison
Well-Known Member
What an excellent and detailed response! In addition to Emily's apparent financial wherewithal, I was thinking that perhaps, since Louis Kramer was involved with Werber at the time this essentially restricted him from starting his own like-concern (if he wanted to keep his job). Since Emily had nothing to do with Werber (presumably), she certainly had no such restrictions and could (and did) set up and run "her own" company. Another thought is that, in 1936, federal tax law made little distinction between filing as single and filing a separate return while married. On a joint return, you simply pooled your income and multiplied the tax brackets by two. This was at a time when there were over 30 tax brackets As such, there was incentive for spouses to split income. Perhaps Lewis had more to to with ACT than was publicized. It just seems odd (at least for the time period) that both husband and wife would be involved in the same type of business, but in different companies (and at a time when a woman would typically be at home, a teacher or a nurse ) Was the court case about a tax dispute betwen Lewis and the Govt, or something else? Can you point me to those filings? They sound interesting.
With regard to JC's reproduction, how much of it was based on speculation vs observation? Is the label correct?
With regard to JC's reproduction, how much of it was based on speculation vs observation? Is the label correct?
Jennison
Well-Known Member
I found online the case to which 33-1729 refers, Wolkowitz v. Commissioner, U.S. Tax Court, 1949. Interestingly, the facts recited in the case state that Louis Kramer, Abe Wolkowitz and John Liebmann founded Aero Clothing & Tanning Co., not Emily, even though the Company was carried on in Emily's name (because she had money and could put up the performance bond for the 3061P contract). That makes more sense. This court case was a tax case brought by Aero Leather Clothing Co. partners against the Govt for tax deficiencies assessed by the latter (in otherwords, taxpayers challenging IRS tax assessments) . Indeed, one of 16 issues presented involved income splitting. On March 31, 1941, Aero Leather Clothing Co. Inc. was dissolved and the assets were distributed 1/3 each to Louis Kramer, Abe Wolkowitz and John Liebmann, the former shareholders. On April 1, 1941, the 3 entered into an informal partnership and created the Aero Leather Clothing Co. The 3 claimed that Kramer's wife, Wolkotiz's son and Liebmann's brother were also partners becuase they signed a partnership agreement. According to the Govt., they did so in order that the income would be split 6 ways and thus be reported by each and therefore subject to lower tax brackets. Problem was, during 1941, Kramer, Wolkowitz and Liebmann held themselves out to be the only 3 partners on all business dealings except for the tax returns, so the Govt's additional tax assessment was upheld. For 1942 and 1943 however, the Court decided in favor of the 6 partners as all 6 were held out as, and performed as, partners of Aero.
I hope the above isn't too boring. At least now you'll know what to think of If you look at the label of a 1940 Aero 16160 and see "Aero Clo Co. Inc" and "Aero Clo Co." on a 1942 Aero 18775 label.
I hope the above isn't too boring. At least now you'll know what to think of If you look at the label of a 1940 Aero 16160 and see "Aero Clo Co. Inc" and "Aero Clo Co." on a 1942 Aero 18775 label.
33-1729
Well-Known Member
You misread those Court documents. This was one I was referring to. From this one . . .
At first the business was carried on in Mrs. Kramer's name. This refers to ACT, not Aero.
When Aero was created Mrs Kremer was not involved and explicitly why the money was distributed to the shareholders when Aero Inc dissolved: Louis Kramer, Abe Wolkowitz and John Liebmann (and not Mrs Kremer). The new Aero, without the Inc, came later. In both Aero company cases, also from this document . . . .
Kramer, Wolkowitz and Liebmann held themselves out to be the only 3 partners on all business dealings.
Mrs Kremer loaned money, invested, etc. into her husbands Aero companies, but did not have a part in running it like before. Yes, it may be odd she helped her husband so much, but some actually do. I'm certain there's a great story behind it. Short version: ACT is not Aero.
As for Werber and Aero (not ACT) I posted some other info on this site. Short version: Werber had a lock on A-2 contracts. Arson by Aero helped change that. Werber inflated asset value (insurance fraud) and the first Werrber company was completely sold off due to that insurance fraud and the next Werber built later from the ground up at a new location. A few Court cases and documents covered this.
EDIT: John's repo is spot on.
At first the business was carried on in Mrs. Kramer's name. This refers to ACT, not Aero.
When Aero was created Mrs Kremer was not involved and explicitly why the money was distributed to the shareholders when Aero Inc dissolved: Louis Kramer, Abe Wolkowitz and John Liebmann (and not Mrs Kremer). The new Aero, without the Inc, came later. In both Aero company cases, also from this document . . . .
Kramer, Wolkowitz and Liebmann held themselves out to be the only 3 partners on all business dealings.
Mrs Kremer loaned money, invested, etc. into her husbands Aero companies, but did not have a part in running it like before. Yes, it may be odd she helped her husband so much, but some actually do. I'm certain there's a great story behind it. Short version: ACT is not Aero.
As for Werber and Aero (not ACT) I posted some other info on this site. Short version: Werber had a lock on A-2 contracts. Arson by Aero helped change that. Werber inflated asset value (insurance fraud) and the first Werrber company was completely sold off due to that insurance fraud and the next Werber built later from the ground up at a new location. A few Court cases and documents covered this.
EDIT: John's repo is spot on.
B-Man2
Well-Known Member
Outstanding research !!
Well done !!
Jennison
Well-Known Member
1) "This refers to ACT, not Aero"
Not sure I understand this. I specifically wrote: "Interestingly, the facts recited in the case state that Louis Kramer, Abe Wolkowitz and John Liebmann founded Aero Clothing & Tanning Co., not Emily, even though the Company was carried on in Emily's name"
2) "Mrs Kremer loaned money, invested, etc. into her husbands Aero companies, but did not have a part in running it like before."
As I wrote above, that is true (at least outwardly) for 1941 and that's why the Court upheld the tax assessment. For 1942 and 1943, the Court agreed with Kramer, Wolkowitz and Liebmann that Emily (along with Wolkowitz's son and Liebmann's brother) did in fact materially participate in the business, In fact she most likely "ran" ACT in the same manner she participated in the business of Aero (except for putting up $ for the performance bond on the 3061P contract). She paid for her partnership interest by forgiving her $4,000 loan and did in fact work for Aero, drawing both a salary and a partnership distribution by 1942. Let's read what the Court had to say about what she did for Aero Clothing Co.:
"Emily Kramer did not know much about the actual manufacture of the garments. However, she knew pretty well how things were handled, particularly from the office end. At first the business could not afford a typist so she typed correspondence for Kramer to help him obtain accounts. She was generally familiar with the books and helped out in the office. She also visited the factory to see that nobody was loafing. She generally went to the factory when her husband was out of town and on these occasions she also took telephone calls in the office, wrote correspondence and took care of other matters. At first she was not paid for her services during the period when the earnings of the business were small. Later she was paid something for her services. This was particularly true in 1942 and 1943."
Thanks for commenting on John's repro! I may have to consider one!
Not sure I understand this. I specifically wrote: "Interestingly, the facts recited in the case state that Louis Kramer, Abe Wolkowitz and John Liebmann founded Aero Clothing & Tanning Co., not Emily, even though the Company was carried on in Emily's name"
2) "Mrs Kremer loaned money, invested, etc. into her husbands Aero companies, but did not have a part in running it like before."
As I wrote above, that is true (at least outwardly) for 1941 and that's why the Court upheld the tax assessment. For 1942 and 1943, the Court agreed with Kramer, Wolkowitz and Liebmann that Emily (along with Wolkowitz's son and Liebmann's brother) did in fact materially participate in the business, In fact she most likely "ran" ACT in the same manner she participated in the business of Aero (except for putting up $ for the performance bond on the 3061P contract). She paid for her partnership interest by forgiving her $4,000 loan and did in fact work for Aero, drawing both a salary and a partnership distribution by 1942. Let's read what the Court had to say about what she did for Aero Clothing Co.:
"Emily Kramer did not know much about the actual manufacture of the garments. However, she knew pretty well how things were handled, particularly from the office end. At first the business could not afford a typist so she typed correspondence for Kramer to help him obtain accounts. She was generally familiar with the books and helped out in the office. She also visited the factory to see that nobody was loafing. She generally went to the factory when her husband was out of town and on these occasions she also took telephone calls in the office, wrote correspondence and took care of other matters. At first she was not paid for her services during the period when the earnings of the business were small. Later she was paid something for her services. This was particularly true in 1942 and 1943."
Thanks for commenting on John's repro! I may have to consider one!
bseal
Well-Known Member
AeroLeatherBeaconNY
New Member
AeroLeatherBeaconNY
New Member
Hi I am doing community research about the Aero leather company in Beacon NY - would you be able to help me find any links to these documents you referenced? greatly appreciate it - so interesting the history here in our town.
AeroLeatherBeaconNY
New Member
i am also trying to learn how to differentiate original jackets made by Aero in Beacon NY vs reproductions. ANY HELP IS GREATLY APPRECIATED
AeroLeatherBeaconNY
New Member
I am VERY INTERESTED in learning more about your project regarding A2 jackets particularly relating to Aero Leather Beacon NY ( or its spinoff companies) I would love to connect and discuss more. many thanks for your time!
In addition to the history of Aero leather I am also trying to learn more about how to differentiate an original A2 jacket from the reproductions.
