- 43 -
Amerada Hess Corp. v. Commissioner, 517 F.2d 75 (3d Cir. 1975);
Estate of Rogers v. Commissioner, 445 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1971),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1970-192; Seas Shipping Co. v. Commissioner, 371
F.2d 528 (2d Cir. 1967), affg. T.C. Memo. 1965-240. In contrast,
in the instant case, no value for the Securities is stated in the
Reorganization Agreement, nor is there any evidence that the
parties assigned a fair market value to those Securities.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Danielson rule is not
applicable in the instant case.8
Does Section 1060 Apply to the Reorganization Agreement?
Respondent contends further that, pursuant to section
1060,9 petitioners and HealthTrust must use $2.1 billion as the
8 For these same reasons, we find that the strong proof rule
also does not apply.
9 Sec. 1060 provides in pertinent part as follows:
SEC. 1060. SPECIAL ALLOCATION RULES FOR CERTAIN ASSET
ACQUISITIONS.
(a) General Rule.--In the case of any applicable asset
acquisition, for purposes of determining both--
(1) the transferee's basis in such assets, and
(2) the gain or loss of the transferor with
respect to such acquisition,
the consideration received for such assets shall be
allocated among such assets acquired in such
acquisition in the same manner as amounts are allocated
to assets under section 338(b)(5).
(b) Information Required To Be Furnished to Secretary.--
Under regulations, the transferor and transferee in an
applicable asset acquisition shall, at such times and in
such manner as may be provided in such regulations, furnish
to the Secretary the following information:
(continued...)
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011