Gerald A. and Henrietta V. Rauenhorst - Page 22




                                       - 22 -                                         
               time as their value can be realized, C will be under no                
               legally binding obligation to do so at the time the                    
               farm items are transferred to the unitrust.  Thus,                     
               based upon the representations made and the principle                  
               enunciated in the authorities cited above, A will not                  
               recognize any income on a sale by the unitrust of farm                 
               items that he has transferred to it.                                   
               Although we do not question the validity of the opinions of            
          this Court and the Courts of Appeals upon which respondent                  
          relies,9 we are not prepared to allow respondent’s counsel to               

               9It appears that the result we reached in Ferguson v.                  
          Commissioner, 108 T.C. 244 (1997), affd. 174 F.3d 997 (9th Cir.             
          1999), is consistent with the result that would have been                   
          obtained under Rev. Rul. 78-197, 1978-1 C.B. 83, because in                 
          Ferguson, we found that the donee could have been compelled to              
          surrender the stock at the time of the gift.  In Ferguson v.                
          Commissioner, supra at 263, we stated:                                      
               We believe, instead, that when more than 50 percent of                 
               the outstanding shares of AHC stock had been tendered                  
               or guaranteed, which in effect was an approval of the                  
               merger agreement, and the charities could not vitiate                  
               the intention of the shareholders who had tendered or                  
               guaranteed a majority of AHC stock, of petitioners, and                
               of DC Acquisition and CDI, the right to merger proceeds                
               matured.  * * *                                                        
          Likewise, in the other cases upon which respondent relies, the              
          donees were powerless, at the time of the gifts, to reverse the             
          courses of disposition set by the donors or third parties.  See             
          Jones v. United States, 531 F.2d 1343 (6th Cir. 1976)                       
          (contribution of 10-percent stock interest in corporation whose             
          shareholders had overwhelmingly approved a plan of complete                 
          liquidation); Hudspeth v. United States, 471 F.2d at 279                    
          (taxpayer’s retained control over corporation rendered donees               
          with minority interest powerless to vitiate the taxpayer’s                  
          “manifest intent to liquidate”); Estate of Applestein v.                    
          Commissioner, 80 T.C. 331 (1983) (bargain sale of 3-percent stock           
          interest in corporation following approval of merger plan by                
          shareholders); Kinsey v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. at 266 (charitable           
          donee with 56-percent majority interest did not have the legal              
          power to stop a complete liquidation).  Unlike the donees in                
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011