- 29 -
the integrated transaction before us from recapture under section
47.
It bears noting that the facts of the instant transaction
are distinguishable from the facts of Salomon v. Commissioner,
976 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1992), and Walt Disney, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 4 F.3d 735 (9th Cir. 1993). Although the spin-offs
in those cases resulted in a change in the identity of the
corporate holder of the section 38 property, that property
remained in the same economic family, with the same shareholders
holding the stock of the new corporate owner of the section 38
property. In the instant case, at the inception of the
transactions, Pilkington held only a 29-percent interest in the
stock of LOF. As a result of the completion of the split off,
Pilkington acquired a 100-percent interest in the stock of LOF
Glass, reflecting a 71-percent shift in the ownership of the
corporation owning the section 38 property after the split off.
For the reasons stated herein and in the above opinions of
the courts of appeals, I dissent.
JACOBS, WELLS, RUWE, BEGHE, and VASQUEZ, JJ., agree with
this dissent.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011