- 22 -                                         
          corporate business purposes.  This is independent of the device             
          test.  The requirement limits tax-free treatment under section              
          355 to spin-offs motivated by non-tax business reasons, and thus            
          prevents tax avoidance opportunities from arising.  Id.  Section            
          1.355-2(b)(2), Income Tax Regs., defines a corporate business               
          purpose as a real and substantial non-Federal tax purpose germane           
          to the distributing corporation, the controlled corporation, or             
          the affiliated group to which the distributing corporation                  
          belongs.  Although respondent maintains that a purely shareholder           
          purpose will not support a tax-free spin-off, there are some                
          situations in which a shareholder purpose may be so intertwined             
          with a corporate business purpose that it is not practical to               
          separate the two.  In such a case, the transaction is considered            
          carried out for a corporate business purpose.  Sec. 1.355-                  
          2(b)(2), Income Tax Regs.  See Estate of Parshelsky v.                      
          Commissioner, 303 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1962), reversing and remanding           
          34 T.C. 946 (1960), on remand T.C. Memo. 1963-187, holding that a           
          shareholder non-tax purpose may be an adequate business purpose             
          for a spin-off.  See also Rafferty v. Commissioner, 452 F.2d 767            
          (1st Cir. 1971), affg. 55 T.C. 490 (1970), and Wilson v.                    
          Commissioner, 353 F.2d 184 (9th Cir. 1965), reversing and                   
          remanding 42 T.C. 914 (1964), which approached the business                 
          purpose issue from different theoretical bases.  In Rafferty,               
          evidence of lack of business purpose was considered by the Court            
          of Appeals as bearing on the "device" requirement.  In Wilson,              
Page:  Previous   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011