Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Intermountain Lumber Co. v. Comm., 65 TC 1025 |
Facts: TP exchanged property for stock in another company. Argued it was a taxable exchange.
Out Come: 351 not satisfied because of binding agreement prior to the transfer |
|
|
Section 351 |
* Transfer of property to controlled corporations.
*If tax payer receives more than stock (Cash or Boot) from the corporation, realized gain is recognized. |
|
|
James v. Commissioner |
Facts: James over saw the construction on a property worth $44 and received stock along with Talbot for 50%
Does James work included in section 351 Did Talbot meet 351 to avoid gain
Conclusion: Because James did not trade property but services then no 351 Talbot now looses majority share and 351 no longer applies so they have a long-term capital gain |
|
|
Peracchi v. Comm |
Facts: Donald contributed 2 pieces of real estate to a closely help corp. Liabilities exceeded basis He issued a promissory note to cover the difference with interest
Conclusion Held basis of the note at face value, as such liabilities no longer exceeded basis and no recognized gain under section 357(c) |
|
|
Jaques v. Comm., 935 F.2d 104 |
Facts: TP took out loans for day-to-day expenses and recorded it as A/R. No collateral pledge or scheduled repayment.
TP considered withdraws a loan which is not taxable
Conclusion The amount withdrawl was not intended as loans, thus are taxable distributions under section 316 |
|
|
Litton Industries, Inc. v. Comm., 89 T.C. 1086 |
Facts The issue for decision is whether the $30,000,000 dividend declared by Stouffer on August 23, 1972, and paid to its parent, Litton, by means of a negotiable promissory note was truly a dividend for tax purposes or whether it should be considered part of the proceeds received by Litton from the sale of all of Stouffer’s stock on March 1, 1973
Conclusion The Court holds that Stouffer declared a dividend on August 23, 1972 and the $30,000,000 was not part of the sales price. |
|
|
General Utilities & Operating Co. v. Helvering, 296 U.S. 200, 56 S.Ct. 185 |
Facts: General Utilities distributes shares of another corporation instead of selling the shares directly to Southern Cities
Conclusion: Board of Tax Appeals declared no taxable gain realized, not subject to additional tax
4th circuit court of appeals reversed decision
Supreme court reversed appeals and agreed with the bard |
|
|
Martin Ice Cream Co., v. Comm., 110 T.C. 189 |
Facts: Martin distributed Haagen-Dazs with not employment contract.
HD purchased by Pilsbury, which also purchased Martin.
Rights of relationship not owned by Martin
Conclusion: No rights to intangible assets when there was no employment contract agreed |
|
|
Ames v. U.S., 981 F.2d 456 |
Facts: John and Johan divorce and disolve their company. Joan surrenders shares and cancels stock certificates to John. Joan filed a claim for a refund stating she was not required to recognize gain on the divorce instrument
Conclusion: Under section 1014, transfer qualified for non recognition of gain. Joan won |
|
|
Ames v. Comm., 102 T.C. 522 |
Facts: John should be taxed on dividend from Joan. Constructive transfer to John
Conclusion: John's obligation not primary and unconditional. Joan's stock not a constructive dividend to John |
