Douglas P. McLaulin, Jr. v. Commissioner

115 T.C. No. 18
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DOUGLAS P. MCLAULIN, JR., ET AL.,1 Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket Nos. 7832-98, 7833-98, Filed September 20, 2000.
7834-98.
Ps’ "S corporation", A, owned 50 percent of the
stock of corporation B, a "C corporation". B redeemed
individual H’s 50-percent stock interest in B for cash
and real property. On the previous day, B had borrowed
from A an amount exceeding the cash consideration and
representing over 96 percent of the total consideration
paid to H for his stock. On the same day as the
redemption, A distributed its then 100-percent stock
interest in B to Ps in a transaction intended to
qualify as a tax-free spinoff under sec. 355(a)(1) and
(c)(1), I.R.C.
Held: Because A’s distribution of the stock of B
occurred less than 5 years after A acquired control of
1
Cases of the following petitioners are consolidated
herewith: Augustus H. King III, docket No. 7833-98, and
Alfred E. and Lynn B. Holland, docket No. 7834-98.
- 2 -
B in a transaction in which gain or loss was
recognized, the distribution failed to satisfy the
active business requirement of sec. 355(a)(1)(C) and
(b)(2)(D)(ii), I.R.C. The distribution resulted in
gain to A under sec. 311(b), I.R.C., taxable to P’s
under sec. 1366(a), I.R.C.
Robert J. Beckham, Donald W. Wallis, and Suzanne M. Judas,
for petitioners.
William R. McCants, for respondent.
HALPERN, Judge: These consolidated cases involve the
following determinations by respondent of deficiencies in
petitioners’ Federal income taxes for 1993:
Petitioner Deficiency
Douglas P. McLaulin, Jr. $97,244
Augustus H. King III 97,124
Alfred E. & Lynn B. Holland 97,244
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure. Petitioners bear the burden of proof. See Rule
142(a).
After concessions, the only issue for decision is whether
the January 15, 1993, distribution by Ridge Pallets, Inc., a
Florida corporation (Ridge), of all of the outstanding stock of
Sunbelt Forest Products, Inc., also a Florida corporation
(Sunbelt), qualifies as a tax-free "spinoff" of Sunbelt to
- 3 -
petitioners, the sole shareholders of Ridge, pursuant to section
355. We hold that it does not. Our reasons follow.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Introduction
Some facts have been stipulated and are so found. The
stipulation of facts filed by the parties, with attached
exhibits, is incorporated by reference.
At the time the petitions were filed, petitioner Douglas P.
McLaulin, Jr. (McLaulin) resided in Mulberry, Florida, petitioner
Augustus H. King III (King) resided in Lakeland, Florida, and
petitioners Alfred E. and Lynn B. Holland (Holland, when
referring to Alfred) resided in Bartow, Florida.
Ridge and Sunbelt
Ridge was incorporated in 1959 by Richard B. Craney
(Craney). From 1977 until July 25, 1993, the sole, equal
shareholders of Ridge were McLaulin, King (Craney’s stepson), and
Holland. Ridge was engaged in the forest products business.
Ridge was profitable, with more than $13 million in retained
earnings as of July 25, 1993.
On December 31, 1986, Ridge elected to become an
S corporation as that term is defined by section 1361(a)(1)
(S corporation), effective for its taxable year ended July 25,
1988. Ridge qualified as an S corporation for each taxable year
thereafter, through and including its taxable year ended July 25,
1994.
- 4 -
Sunbelt was incorporated in 1981.2 Initially, its sole,
equal shareholders were Craney, Ridge, and an otherwise unrelated
individual, John L. Hutto (Hutto). In 1986, Craney’s shares of
stock were redeemed by Sunbelt, and, from then until January 15,
1993, Ridge and Hutto were the sole, equal shareholders of
Sunbelt. Hutto was president of Sunbelt and chairman of its
board of directors. He was responsible for all executive
functions of Sunbelt. Sunbelt produced and sold pressure-treated
lumber. That business was profitable. In February 1989, based
on Hutto’s experience in the millwork business (manufacturing
doors and window frames), Sunbelt entered the millwork business
(the millwork division). The millwork division lost money from
its inception to its shutdown in mid-1990. Because of Sunbelt’s
management’s focus on the millwork division, Sunbelt’s core
business (pressure-treating lumber) also suffered. Nonetheless,
Sunbelt had over $1.8 million in retained earnings as of the
close of its fiscal taxable year ended June 26, 1993.
Events Leading to Ridge’s Distribution of the Sunbelt Stock to
Ridge’s Shareholders
In 1982, Sunbelt began to borrow money from Citrus and
Chemical Bank, in Bartow, Florida (the Bank), pursuant to a
2
There is a conflict between Stipulation of Facts 15,
which recites that Sunbelt was incorporated in 1983, and Exhibit
43-J, Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, 1992, for
Sunbelt, which states that Sunbelt’s date of incorporation is
Oct. 16, 1981. We may disregard a stipulation where it is
clearly contrary to the evidence in the record, and we do so
here. See Jasionowski v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 312, 318 (1976).
- 5 -
series of renewable notes (the notes). Beginning in 1984, and
until 1989, Ridge stood as a guarantor of the notes. Borrowings
pursuant to the notes reached $2 million by 1989. On
February 26, 1990, the board of directors of Ridge (the Ridge
board) authorized the withdrawal of Ridge’s guaranty of Sunbelt’s
debt to the bank (the Ridge guaranty) if there was not "a prompt
cessation and controlled liquidation of the millwork division."
Ridge could not force a shutdown of the millwork division because
it was unable to outvote Hutto, who, like Ridge, was a 50-percent
shareholder in Sunbelt. The Ridge board reasoned that, without
the Ridge guaranty, Sunbelt would be unable to obtain new funds
to cover future losses, and, as a result, Hutto would be forced
to shut down the millwork division.
On May 18, 1990, Ridge withdrew the Ridge guaranty and,
shortly thereafter, the millwork division was liquidated. On
September 17, 1990, Ridge purchased Sunbelt’s 1989 note (the 1989
note) from the Bank for $630,000, the balance due. Thereafter,
Ridge financed Sunbelt directly by extending and modifying the
1989 note on numerous occasions. In that way, Ridge was able to
exercise control over the management of Sunbelt.
In mid-1992, Hutto decided to sell his shares in Sunbelt and
leave the company. Hutto’s decision culminated several months of
negotiations between Ridge and Hutto, in which Ridge sought
either to purchase Hutto’s interest in Sunbelt or sell its
interest to Hutto. Ridge instigated those negotiations because
- 6 -
of its dissatisfaction with Hutto’s management of Sunbelt.
Earlier in 1992, Ridge and Hutto had tentatively agreed to a
price of $825,000 for a 50-percent stock interest in Sunbelt,
applicable whether Hutto was the buyer or the seller. Ridge and
Hutto finally agreed that Ridge and Hutto would cause Sunbelt to
redeem Hutto’s shares in Sunbelt (the redemption) in exchange for
$828,943.75 in cash and real estate valued at $101,000. The
redemption was accomplished on January 15, 1993. Immediately
thereafter, Ridge owned the only outstanding shares of Sunbelt.
Also on January 15, 1993, subsequent to the redemption,
Ridge made a distribution with respect to its stock of all of its
shares in Sunbelt (the distribution and the Sunbelt shares,
respectively). The distribution was to petitioners, the sole
shareholders of Ridge, pro rata. The Ridge board set forth its
reasons for the distribution as follows:
WHEREAS, Sunbelt’s activities are regulated by the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation and are subject
to certain provisions of state and federal
environmental protection laws, including the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Any violation of such
laws in the past or in the future by Sunbelt may
subject Corporation [Ridge] to liability as a
shareholder of Sunbelt for damages, fines or penalties;
and
WHEREAS, Sunbelt anticipates offering certain of
its securities in a public offering in the future and
the Corporation does not want to be involved in a
public offering or to have the securities law
obligations of a control shareholder of a public
corporation; and
- 7 -
WHEREAS, if corporation continues to wholly own
Sunbelt subsequent to the redemption, Sunbelt and
Corporation will be prohibited from electing or
maintaining their respective Subchapter S status for
Federal tax purposes and for purposes of the income tax
imposed by the State of Florida * * *
Funding the Redemption
Sunbelt needed cash in the amount of $828,243.74 to fund the
redemption. Although Sunbelt had assets and accumulated earnings
in excess of that amount, it did not have the necessary cash. On
January 14, 1993, the amount available to Sunbelt pursuant to the
1989 note was increased from $2 million to $3 million, and, on
that same date, Sunbelt took advantage of its increased borrowing
power under the 1989 note and borrowed $900,000 from Ridge,
which, in part, it used to make the redemption.
OPINION
I. Introduction
The fundamental question we must answer is whether gain
is to be recognized to Ridge on account of the distribution.
If so, then, since, for Ridge’s taxable year ending July 25,
1993, it was an S corporation, petitioners must take into account
their pro rata shares of such gain. See sec. 1366(a). No gain
will be recognized to Ridge on account of the distribution if
that transaction qualifies for nonrecognition treatment pursuant
to section 355. The pertinent provisions of section 355(a) and
- 8 -
(c) are set forth in the margin.3 If the distribution does not
3
SEC. 355. DISTRIBUTION OF STOCK AND SECURITIES
OF A CONTROLLED CORPORATION.
(a) Effect on Distributees.--
(1) General Rule.--If--
(A) a corporation (referred to in this
section as the "distributing corporation")
(i) distributes to a shareholder, with
respect to its stock, * * *
* * * * * * *
solely stock or securities of a corporation
(referred to in this section as "controlled
corporation") which it controls immediately before
the distribution,
(B) the transaction was not used principally
as a device for the distribution of the
earnings and profits of the distributing
corporation or the controlled corporation or
both * * *
(C) the requirements of subsection (b)
(relating to active businesses) are
satisfied, and
(D) as part of the distribution, the
distributing corporation distributes--
(i) all of the stock and securities in the
controlled corporation held by it immediately
before the distribution, * * *
* * * * * * *
then no gain or loss shall be recognized to (and
no amount shall be includible in the income of)
such shareholder or security holder on the receipt
of such stock or securities.
(continued...)
- 9 -
qualify for section 355 nonrecognition treatment, then gain will
be recognized to Ridge pursuant to section 311(b).4 Moreover,
the parties have stipulated that, if the distribution does not
qualify for section 355 nonrecognition treatment, the
deficiencies determined by respondent with respect to petitioners
are correct. Respondent argues that the distribution does not
3
(...continued)
* * * * * * *
(c) Taxability of Corporation on Distribution.--
(1) In general.--* * * no gain or loss shall
be recognized to a corporation on any distribution
to which this section * * * applies and which is
not in pursuance of a plan of reorganization.
4
Sec. 311(b) generally provides for a distributing
corporation’s recognition of gain on its distribution of
appreciated property "as if such property were sold to the
distributee at its fair market value." Sec. 311(b) only applies
to a corporate distribution of appreciated property to which
subpart A (secs. 301-307) applies. Sec. 355(a)(1), if applicable
to this case, would provide an exception to dividend treatment
under sec. 301 and, therefore, an exception to the application of
sec. 311(b). See sec. 355(c)(3).
We note, in passing, that, because Ridge’s S corporation
election was made on, not after, Dec. 31, 1986, sec. 1374, as
amended by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA of 1986), Pub. L.
99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, does not apply to tax the alleged sec.
311(b) gain to Ridge. See TRA of 1986 sec. 633(b); Rev. Rul. 86-
141, 1986-2 C.B. 151, 152. Sec. 1374 requires that "built-in
gain" be taxed directly to an S corporation. The pre-TRA of 1986
version of sec. 1374 applied only during the first 3 years (not
the first 10 years as under the amended provision) for which an
S corporation election was in effect. See former sec.
1374(c)(1). For Ridge, the applicable years were its 1988-90
taxable years. Therefore, any taxable gain to Ridge arising out
of the Jan. 15, 1993, distribution of the Sunbelt stock would not
be subject to former sec. 1374. Such gain would be directly
taxable to the petitioner-shareholders pursuant to sec. 1366(a).
- 10 -
qualify for section 355 nonrecognition treatment on two separate
and independent grounds:
(1) The contemporaneous redemption and distribution fail to
satisfy the requirements of section 355(b) as to active trade or
business.5 Specifically, respondent argues that, although
5
SEC. 355(b) provides:
(b) Requirements as to Active Business.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall apply only if
either-
(A) the distributing corporation, and the
controlled corporation (or, if stock of more than
one controlled corporation is distributed, each of
such corporations), is engaged immediately after
the distribution in the active conduct of a trade
or business, or
(B) immediately before the distribution, the
distributing corporation had no assets other than
stock or securities in the controlled corporations
and each of the controlled corporations is engaged
immediately after the distribution in the active
conduct of a trade or business.
(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph(1), a
corporation shall be treated as engaged in the active
conduct of a trade or business if and only if--
(A) it is engaged in the active conduct of a
trade or business, or substantially all of its
assets consist of stock and securities of a
corporation controlled by it (immediately after
the distribution) which is so engaged,
(B) such trade or business has been actively
conducted throughout the 5-year period ending on
the date of the distribution,
(C) such trade or business was not acquired
(continued...)
- 11 -
Sunbelt had been engaged in an active trade or business for more
than 5 years on the date of the distribution, control of Sunbelt
was acquired by the distributing corporation (Ridge), within such
5-year period, in a transaction (the redemption) in which gain
was recognized, thereby violating the requirements of section
355(b)(2)(D)(ii).
(2) Petitioners have failed to prove that the distribution
was designed to achieve a corporate business purpose, as required
by section 1.355-2(b), Income Tax Regs.
5
(...continued)
within the period described in subparagraph (B) in
a transaction in which gain or loss was recognized
in whole or in part, and
(D) control of a corporation which (at the time
of acquisition of control) was conducting such
trade or business--
(i) was not acquired by any distributee
corporation directly (or through 1 or more
corporations, whether through the distributing
corporation or otherwise) within the period
described in subparagraph (B) and was not
acquired by the distributing corporation
directly (or through 1 or more corporations)
within such period, or
(ii) was so acquired by any such corporation
within such period, but, in each case in which
such control was so acquired, it was so
acquired, only by reason of transactions in
which gain or loss was not recognized in whole
or in part, or only by reason of such
transactions combined with acquisitions before
the beginning of such period.
- 12 -
Because we agree with respondent’s first ground, we do not
address respondent’s second ground.
II. Active Business Requirement
A. Pertinent Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code
One of the specific requirements for section 355
nonrecognition treatment on the pro rata distribution of the
shares of a controlled corporation (a so-called spinoff) is that
"the requirements of subsection (b) [of section 355] (relating to
active businesses) are satisfied". Sec. 355(a)(1)(C). Section
355(b)(1)(A) provides that both the distributing and the
controlled corporation must be "engaged immediately after the
distribution in the active conduct of a trade or business".
Section 355(b)(2) defines the circumstances under which "a
corporation shall be treated as engaged in the active conduct of
a trade or business". Section 355(b)(2)(B) provides that the
trade or business must have been "actively conducted throughout
the 5-year period ending on the date of the distribution" (the
5-year period). Section 355(b)(2)(D) provides, in pertinent
part, that control6 of the corporation engaged in the active
conduct of a trade or business on the date of acquisition of
control must not have been acquired within the 5-year period or,
if acquired within such period, it must have been acquired "only
6
For purposes of sec. 355, control is defined in terms
of 80 percent of both voting control and share ownership. See
sec. 368(c).
- 13 -
by reason of transactions in which gain or loss was not
recognized in whole or in part, or only by reason of such
transactions combined with acquisitions before the beginning of
such period." Sec. 355(b)(2)(D)(ii).
B. Arguments of the Parties
Respondent does not dispute that both Ridge and Sunbelt were
engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business immediately
after the distribution. Nor does he dispute that both businesses
had been actively conducted throughout the 5-year period.
Respondent argues, however, that Ridge violated the conditions of
section 355(b)(2)(D)(ii) because it acquired control of Sunbelt
within the 5-year period in a transaction (the redemption) in
which gain or loss was recognized.7 In reaching that conclusion,
respondent relies upon the statutory language and upon Rev. Rul.
57-144, 1957-1 C.B. 123, in which respondent determined that a
personal holding company’s distribution to its shareholders of
the stock of one of its two controlled operating subsidiaries
does not qualify as a tax-free spinoff where control of the
7
It appears from the record that Hutto’s basis in his
Sunbelt stock was his initial investment of $66,667 (one-third of
the total initial shareholder investment of approximately
$200,000). Thus, Hutto’s gain on the redemption was
approximately $863,276.75 ($929,943.75 redemption price less
$66,667 stock basis). Petitioners have not assigned error to
respondent’s finding that petitioners together realized and had
recognized to them the same amount of gain on Ridge’s same-day
distribution to them of the same number of Sunbelt shares as were
redeemed from Hutto, assuming sec. 355 is inapplicable to such
distribution.
- 14 -
parent’s other operating subsidiary (which was merged into the
parent after the distribution) was obtained during the 5-year
period as a result of that subsidiary’s redemption of a portion
of a more than 20-percent minority interest.
Petitioners respond that this case simply does not involve
tax avoidance of a kind that the active business requirement of
section 355(b) and, in particular, section 355(b)(2)(D) is
designed to combat. In that regard, petitioners argue that
(1) Ridge’s accumulated adjustment account under section
1368(e)(1) (in this case, Ridge’s undistributed, previously taxed
earnings) exceeded the value of the distributed Sunbelt stock so
that the distribution could not have constituted a taxable
dividend to petitioners even if it had taken the form of a cash
distribution (see sec. 1368(c)(1)), and (2) the redemption was
not an acquisition of control by Ridge for purposes of section
355(b)(2)(D). Alternatively, petitioners argue that, even if the
combined redemption-distribution is deemed to have violated the
literal terms of the statute (since gain was, in fact, recognized
to Hutto), respondent has allowed tax-free treatment for other
transactions that failed to meet the literal statutory
requirements for nonrecognition of gain. Petitioners claim that
nonrecognition of gain is equally justified in this case.
Petitioners also argue that the facts of Rev. Rul. 57-144, supra,
are distinguishable from the facts of this case, and, therefore,
it is not germane.
- 15 -
C. Discussion
1. Acquisition of Control
We generally treat a revenue ruling as merely the
Commissioner’s litigating position not entitled to any judicial
deference or precedential weight. See, e.g., Norfolk S.S. Corp.
v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 13, 45-46 (1995), supplemented by 104
T.C. 417 (1995), affd. 140 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1998); Simon v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. 247, 263 n.14 (1994), affd. 68 F.3d 41 (2d
Cir. 1995); Pasqualini v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 1, 8 n.8 (1994);
and Exxon Corp. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 721, 726 n.8 (1994).
We may, however, take a revenue ruling into account where we
judge the underlying rationale to be sound. See Spiegelman v.
Commissioner, 102 T.C. 394, 405 (1994) (citing Newberry v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 441, 445 (1981)). The degree to which we
must respect the Respondent’s longstanding position in Rev. Rul.
57-144, supra, is of no concern, however, because, in the
circumstances of this case, we reach the same result.
First of all, we do not agree with petitioners that the
facts in Rev. Rul. 57-144, supra, are distinguishable from the
facts in this case in any significant way. While it is true that
the ruling involves (1) a parent holding company and two
operating subsidiaries rather than, as in this case, a parent
operating company and a single operating subsidiary, and (2) a
taxable stock redemption by the retained rather than by the
distributed subsidiary, those are distinctions of no legal
- 16 -
significance. The key determination by respondent in Rev. Rul.
57-144, supra, which is relevant to this case, is the
determination that a parent corporation is considered to acquire
control of its subsidiary by virtue of the subsidiary’s
redemption of the stock of another shareholder whose interest in
the subsidiary before the redemption exceeded 20 percent.
In opposition to that determination by respondent,
petitioners argue that, where control of the subsidiary is the
result of the subsidiary’s redemption of its own stock, there is
no “acquisition” of control by the parent distributing
corporation as contemplated by section 355(b)(2)(D). Again, we
disagree with that blanket assertion. As one commentator has
noted:
The literal statutory language supports the
redemption rule of Rev. Rul. 57-144, since P acquired
control of S as a result of a taxable transaction.
Although the purpose of §355(b)(2)(D) to prevent
Distributing from using its liquid assets to buy a
corporation conducting an active business would not at
first blush seem to be violated by a redemption of S
stock before a spin-off (because P is not using any of
its own assets in a way contrary to the purpose of
§355(b)(2)(D)), the fungibility of cash makes such a
redemption problematic. It may be difficult to
determine whether, in true economic effect, the cash
used in the redemption could be attributed to P--as,
for instance, if S used all of its cash normally used
for its working capital requirements for the
redemption, which P made up to S after the redemption.
* * *
Ridgway, 776-2d Tax Mgmt. (BNA), Corporate Separations at A-42,
A-43 (2000) (fn. refs. & citations omitted; emphasis added).
- 17 -
In this case, all of the cash needed to accomplish the
redemption came directly from Ridge, the parent distributing
corporation. On January 14, 1993, Sunbelt borrowed $900,000 from
Ridge. On the following day, Sunbelt redeemed all of Hutto’s
stock for $828,943.75, in cash, plus real estate with a value of
$101,000. Petitioners specifically acknowledge that Sunbelt
lacked sufficient liquidity to fund the redemption and,
therefore, needed to borrow the necessary funds. Although, as
petitioners point out, Sunbelt might have borrowed the funds from
a third-party lender, it did not. Moreover, the negotiations
between Hutto and Ridge prior to the redemption, whereby the two
parties sought to terminate their joint ownership of Sunbelt by
having one buy the stock of the other, clearly indicate that
Ridge was the motivating force for the buyout of Hutto’s interest
in Sunbelt and that Sunbelt was, in effect, serving Ridge’s
purpose in accomplishing this goal. Any distinction between that
series of transactions and an outright purchase of the stock by
Ridge, the distributing corporation, is illusory for purposes of
section 355(b)(2)(D)(ii).8
8
See Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Commissioner, 430 F.2d 1185
(5th Cir. 1970), revg. 50 T.C. 650 (1968), in which the court
held that, where a subsidiary-payor distributed a promissory note
to its shareholder-payee in the form of an intercompany dividend,
the payor’s discharge of the note with funds borrowed from the
purchaser of the payor’s stock from the payee was, in substance,
the purchaser’s payment of additional purchase price for the
stock.
- 18 -
Under Rev. Rul. 57-144, 1957-1 C.B. 123, section
355(b)(2)(D) applies to any taxable redemption during the 5-year
period that results in control of the subsidiary by the
distributing corporation. We need not and do not decide whether
we would reach the same result as Rev. Rul. 57-144, supra, in all
such cases. We decide only that we reach the same result under
the circumstances of this case.
2. Additional Arguments
In reaching our decision, we find none of petitioners’
additional arguments persuasive.
a. Active Business Test
Petitioners argue that the fundamental goal of the active
business test is to prevent shareholder withdrawal of accumulated
earnings at capital gain rates, and that, because Ridge’s
accumulated adjustment account under section 1368(e)(1) exceeded
the value of the distributed Sunbelt stock, an otherwise taxable
distribution (including a cash dividend) would not have been
taxable to petitioners. Therefore, petitioners continue, there
could not have been any conversion of ordinary income into
capital gain. Additionally, petitioners argue that the issue in
this case, the taxation of corporate level gain, is not addressed
by section 355(b)(2)(D).
Petitioners’ first argument ignores the fact that, pursuant
to sections 1367(a)(2)(A) and 1368(e)(1)(A), the accumulated
adjustment account is reduced by the amount of the distribution
- 19 -
(the value of the distributed Sunbelt stock) thereby reducing the
interval before additional distributions by Ridge would become
taxable to petitioners. Moreover, petitioners’ argument proves
too much, as it would also apply to Ridge’s purchase of Hutto’s
Sunbelt stock directly from Hutto during the 5-year period.
Petitioners’ additional argument (section 355(b)(2)(D) does
not deal with corporate level gain) ignores the post-1986
evolution of section 355 (including amendments to section
355(b)(2)(D)) into a weapon against avoidance of the repeal of
the General Utilities9 doctrine, which, prior to its repeal by
the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, sec. 631(c), 100
Stat. 2085, 2272, generally provided for the nonrecognition of
gain realized by a corporation on the distribution of appreciated
property to its shareholders. As noted by one commentator:
It should not be surprising that more attention
has been directed toward Section 355 today than was
ever the case in the past. From a tax perspective, its
attraction is grounded on the fact that it is one of
the few (some might say the only) viable opportunity to
escape the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine.
* * *
Gould, "Spinoffs: Divesting in a Post-General Utilities World,
with Emphasis on Practical Problems", 69 TAXES 889 (Dec. 1991);
(fn. refs. omitted). Indeed, petitioners themselves place
obvious reliance upon section 355 to avoid taxation pursuant to
section 311(b).
9
See General Utils. & Operating Co. v. Helvering,
296 U.S. 200 (1935).
- 20 -
b. Literal Compliance With Section 355 Not Always
Required
Petitioners also argue that nonrecognition treatment is
justified herein on the basis of case law and respondent’s
pronouncements in which nonrecognition of gain was afforded to a
transaction despite a failure to satisfy the literal terms of the
governing statute. In general, the authorities cited by
petitioners involve either (1) cash payments that are disregarded
in determining the applicability of a nonrecognition provision,
see Rev. Rul. 55-440, 1955-2 C.B. 226, Chief Counsel’s
Memorandum, formerly General Counsel’s memorandum (G.C.M.), 33712
(Dec. 21, 1967), and G.C.M. 32868 (June 26, 1964) or (2) gain
recognition transfers of assets or stock between affiliated
corporations within the 5-year period that are held not to negate
the tax-free treatment of a subsequent spinoff pursuant to
section 355(b)(2)(C) or (D); see Commissioner v. Gordon, 382 F.2d
499 (2d Cir. 1967), revd. on other grounds 391 U.S. 83 (1968);
Rev. Rul. 78-442, 1978-2 C.B. 143; Rev. Rul. 69-461, 1969-2 C.B.
52; G.C.M. 35633 (Jan. 23, 1974).
Both Rev. Rul. 55-440, supra, and G.C.M. 33712, supra,
determine that the “solely for voting stock” requirement of a
tax-free reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(B) is satisfied
where, in connection with the reorganization, the acquired
corporation purchases (redeems) some of its stock for cash.
G.C.M. 32868, supra, determines that the cash redemption of
- 21 -
preferred stock from shareholders of both common and preferred,
in connection with the acquisition of all of the common stock in
a tax-free reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(C), is taxable
to the shareholders under section 302 as a transaction separate
from the reorganization. The cash is not “boot” taxable to the
shareholders under section 356. In both of the G.C.M.’s, Counsel
explicitly bases his determination on the fact that the acquired
corporation used its own funds for the redemption. Although the
issue of which corporation provided the funds for the redemption
was not specifically addressed in Rev. Rul. 55-440, supra, it
appears that such funds were, in fact, provided by the acquired
corporation. We find that that feature, among others, of all
three of the pronouncements distinguishes their facts from the
facts of this case.
The other authorities relied upon by petitioners are also
distinguishable because, in each, either the taxable acquisition
(or incorporation) of the subsidiary to be spun off within the
5-year period or the spinoff itself less than 5 years after a
taxable purchase of the subsidiary occurred within the context of
an affiliated group of corporations. Thus, Commissioner v.
Gordon, supra, involves a subsidiary spun off within 5 years of
its incorporation in a transaction involving the receipt of
“boot” (a demand note) taxable to the transferor parent. The
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the section
355(b)(2)(C) and (D) prohibition against acquiring a business or
- 22 -
a corporation in a taxable transaction within the 5-year period
must be restricted to acquisitions from outside the affiliated
group in order to carry out the legislative intent of section
355(b), which, it concluded, was to prevent “the temporary
investment of liquid assets in a new business in preparation for
a 355(a) division.” Id. at 506 (emphasis added).10 Respondent
adopted that reasoning in Rev. Rul. 78-442, supra, and Counsel
did so in G.C.M. 35633, supra, both of which involve the
incorporation of an operating division preparatory to a spinoff
of the newly formed subsidiary in a transaction intended to
qualify as a tax-free reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(D).
In both pronouncements, the incorporation of the more-than-
5-year-old division involves the assumption of liabilities in
excess of the transferor’s basis, resulting in gain recognized to
the transferor under section 357(c). Respondent and Counsel,
like the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Commissioner
v. Gordon, supra, determined that section 355(b)(2)(C) is
intended to prevent the acquisition of a new business from
outside the affiliated group within the 5-year period.
Therefore, they found no violation of that provision by virtue of
10
In Baan v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 71 (1965), revd. and
remanded 382 F.2d 485 (9th Cir. 1967), we reached the same result
as the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but on the ground
(rejected by the Court of Appeals) that the incorporation of the
subsidiary was, in fact, a nonrecognition transaction because the
gain attributable to the receipt of boot was eliminated in
consolidation.
- 23 -
the section 357(c) gain on the distributing corporation’s
incorporation of an existing business.11
In Rev. Rul. 69-461, supra, respondent determined that a
distribution by a subsidiary to its parent of the stock of the
former’s subsidiary, within 5 years of the first-tier
subsidiary’s purchase of such stock, does not violate section
355(b)(2)(D). Respondent reasoned that section 355(b)(2)(D) is
not intended to apply to a distribution “that merely has the
effect of converting indirect control into direct control”, but,
rather, “applies to a transaction in which stock is acquired from
outside a direct chain of ownership.” Rev. Rul 69-461, 1969-2
C.B. at 53. Similarly, in Rev. Rul. 74-5, 1974-1 C.B. 82
(discussed by both parties), the parent distributee (P) purchases
the stock of the subsidiary distributor less than 5 years prior
to the latter’s distribution of an operating subsidiary that it
had owned for more than 5 years. Respondent determined that that
conversion of P’s indirect control into direct control of the
distributed subsidiary within the 5-year period did not violate
section 355(b)(2)(D) because there is no passthrough of P’s
11
Sec. 1.355-3(b)(4)(iii), Income Tax Regs., applicable
to acquisitions prior to the Revenue Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-
203, 101 Stat. 1330, and the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue
Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-647, 102 Stat. 3342, also provides that
sec. 355(b)(2)(C) and (D) does not apply to an acquisition of
assets or stock by one member of an affiliated group from another
member of the same group, even if the acquisition is taxable.
- 24 -
“accumulated excess funds through another corporation to P
shareholders”.12
In this case, the redemption accomplished more than merely
the conversion of indirect to direct control of Sunbelt. It
accomplished the acquisition of control where none had existed
previously. For that reason, it represents, in the language of
the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Commissioner v.
Gordon, 382 F.2d at 506, “the temporary investment of liquid
assets in a new business in preparation for * * * [a spinoff]”.
We hold that, in contrast to the circumstances involved in the
pronouncements cited by petitioners, the distribution within
5 years of the redemption is precisely the type of transaction
section 355(b)(2)(D) is designed to eliminate from nonrecognition
treatment under section 355(a).
III. Conclusion
Respondent’s deficiencies against petitioners are sustained.
Decisions will be entered
for respondent.
12
In Rev. Rul. 74-5, 1974-1 C.B. 82, respondent further
determined that parent distributee’s (P’s) subsequent
distribution of the subsidiary stock to its shareholders, within
the 5-year period, does violate the requirements of sec.
355(b)(2)(D). The prior distribution to P also violates sec.
355(b)(2)(D) as amended by the Revenue Act of 1987, sec.
10223(b), 101 Stat. 1330, supra, and sec. 2004(h)(1) of TAMRA,
supra. As a result, Rev. Rul. 89-37, 1989 C.B. 107, obsoletes
the holding of Rev. Rul. 74-5, supra, with respect to the
distribution to P.