- 26 -                                         
          subsidiaries.  Neither party suggested that such fair market                 
          value should be allocated between the elements involved in the               
          exchange.  Under these circumstances, we did not address the                 
          question whether, had ITT been entitled to deduct such losses,               
          the full amount of the fair market value of the ITT stock should             
          have been taken into account or whether a portion of that value              
          should have been treated as a capital contribution to the                    
          subsidiaries.  Furthermore, we noted that we were expressing no              
          opinion as to what our position would be outside the consolidated            
          return arena, i.e., in a situation where the consolidated return             
          regulations did not apply.  See International Telephone &                    
          Telegraph v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. at 84 n.26.  In light of the              
          foregoing, we do not think we are precluded by International                 
          Telephone & Telegraph, from examining the question whether the               
          fair market value of Metals' stock should be attributed in part              
          to the conversion of the debentures by Metals and thus not                   
          constitute an element of loss upon redemption.6  Cf. National Can            
          Corp. v. United States, 687 F.2d 1107, 1116 (7th Cir. 1982).                 
               In our view, there were two elements involved in the                    
          issuance of Metals' stock:  (1) The acquisition of the debentures            
          and the right to obtain reimbursement for the principal amount               
          6  We note that neither party has suggested that any provision of            
          the existing consolidated return regulations applies to the                  
          instant case.  See National Can Corp. v. United States, 687 F.2d             
          1107, 1117 (7th Cir. 1982).                                                  
Page:  Previous   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011