Alumax Inc. and Consolidated Subsidiaries - Page 88

                                       - 80 -                                         
          and for 1985 and 1986 for purposes of amended section                       
          1504(a)(1)(B) and (2)(A).  See generally Anderson-Clayton Securi-           
          ties Corp. v. Commissioner, 35 B.T.A. 795 (1937).                           
               The Mandatory Dividend Provision                                       
               Respondent contends that the mandatory dividend provision,             
          which was contained in the 1984 restated certificate of                     
          incorporation, affected the voting power of the Alumax class C              
          common stock for purposes of section 1504(a)(1).  In support of             
          that contention, respondent asserts, and petitioners do not                 
          dispute, that the determination of whether or not to declare and            
          pay dividends was one of the Alumax board management matters on             
          which the Alumax board would have had the power to vote if it had           
          not been for the mandatory dividend provision, which removed from           
          that board the power to determine whether or not to declare and             
          pay dividends to the extent of 35 percent of Alumax' net                    
          income.23                                                                   
               Petitioners contend that the mandatory dividend provision              
          did not reduce the voting power of the Alumax class C common                
          stock or detract from the power of the class C directors to man-            
          age the business and affairs of Alumax or from the exercise of              


          23  The mandatory dividend provision required that dividends to             
          the extent of 35 percent of Alumax' net income be declared by the           
          Alumax board and paid by Alumax "to the extent permitted by law."           
          The parties do not suggest that such dividends were not mandatory           
          because they were to be declared and paid "to the extent permit-            
          ted by law."                                                                





Page:  Previous  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011