- 9 - decree did not order a transfer of title to 55 percent of the shares directly to Linda, it plainly provided, in the division of assets of the marriage, for a transfer to her of beneficial ownership of the stock. See Cepeda v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-62 (to determine ownership for tax purposes, "a court must consider * * * when the benefits and burdens of the property, or the incidents of ownership, were acquired"), affd. without published opinion 56 F.3d 1384 (5th Cir. 1995). When the divorce decree became final, Linda acquired both the benefits-- entitlement to 55 percent of the proceeds from the sale--and the burdens--the obligation to pay taxes on 55 percent of the proceeds--of stock ownership. Cf. Serianni v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1090 (1983), affd. 765 F.2d 1051 (11th Cir. 1985). Since she was the legal, if not the record, owner of 55 percent of the shares, petitioner was acting on her behalf to the extent of her beneficial ownership in the 150 shares of MUI when the stock was sold to MUI. Petitioner was acting on his own behalf with regard only to the 45-percent interest awarded to him in the divorce decree. We give effect to the substance of the transaction, rather than its form,4 and hold that petitioner is chargeable with only 4 See Griffiths v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 355, 357 (1939) ("We cannot too often reiterate that 'taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed--the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.'"); Houchins v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 570, 589 (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011