- 11 -
the regulation and not look to the courts to do it for her.
Although we made no specific reference to Rev. Rul. 82-20, supra,
it is clear that we rejected its reasoning by adhering to Example
(5). Indeed, we reinforced such rejection by a lengthy
discussion and rejection of the role of the so-called step
transaction doctrine upon which Rev. Rul. 82-20 rested. See Walt
Disney Inc. v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. at 231-236; see also Tandy
Corp. v. Commissioner, supra, wherein we rejected the application
of the step transaction doctrine to the issue of an ITC recapture
in a nonconsolidated return situation.
The next development in the scenario involved herein is the
decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
Salomon, Inc. v. United States, 976 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1992). A
factual situation substantially similar to that involved herein
and in Walt Disney Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, confronted the
Court of Appeals in Salomon. In deciding the case in favor of
the Government, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
declared that the fact that, in Example (5), "the asset transfer
occurs in one year (1968) and the spinoff in the next year
(1969)", Salomon, Inc. v. United States, supra at 842,
constituted a significant difference from the situation dealt
with in Rev. Rul. 82-20, supra, and the Court of Appeals
concluded:
The Revenue Ruling thus complements CRR Example 5 by
dealing with transactions that occur rapidly and are
intended at their onset to transfer section 38 property
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011