Michael Ferguson and Valene Ferguson - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
          of substance-over-form doctrine); Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S.           
          579, 583 (1941) (application of assignment of income doctrine).             
               In Hudspeth v. United States, supra, the taxpayer, who was             
          an 81.5-percent shareholder, a director, president, and treasurer           
          of a corporation, donated to various charitable organizations               
          stock in the corporation, which had previously adopted a plan of            
          liquidation pursuant to resolution by its board of directors and            
          ratification by the shareholders.  The Court of Appeals for the             
          Eighth Circuit rejected the taxpayer's contention “that the date            
          of the gift preceded the time when an enforceable right to the              
          liquidation proceeds accrued (i.e., when the corporation's board            
          passed the final resolution of dissolution)” and, instead,                  
          focused on the reality and substance of the events.  Id. at 277,            
          280.  Noting the taxpayer's continued control of the corporation            
          and the transferees' inability to vitiate the taxpayer's                    
          intention to liquidate, the court determined that the affirmative           
          vote of the shareholders to liquidate the corporation was                   
          sufficient to sever the gain from the stock such that the                   
          transfer to the charities constituted a transfer of liquidation             
          proceeds rather than an interest in a viable corporation.  Id. at           
          278-279.  The court would not “eviscerate established principles            
          of anticipatory assignment of income by considering remote,                 
          hypothetically possible abandonments in the face of unrebutted              
          evidence that the taxpayer intended to and did, in fact, complete           
          the liquidation of his corporation.”  Id. at 280.                           

Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011