Trinova Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 31

                                       - 31 -                                         
          and the LOF Glass divestiture transaction.5  Contrary to the                
          majority's assumption, the unadorned descriptions of the events             
          in the regulation's two examples indicate the lack of connection            
          between the intragroup sale of section 38 assets in year 1 and              
          the sale of the stock of the purchaser to a third party outside             
          the group in year 2.  The majority goes on to disregard the                 
          obvious connection--supplied by the intent, manifested                      
          contemporaneously with the drop-down to LOF Glass, to accomplish            
          the end result of the split-off--that binds the steps in the case           
          at hand in an integrated transaction.6                                      
               The transactions in the case at hand are not just two                  
          unconnected sales.  They evidence a flow of events that comprise            
          a two-step divestiture, the second step of which is an exchange             


          5    There are at least three significant differences between the           
          facts of the examples in the section 1502 regulation and the                
          facts of our case.  In the examples, the sale of the section 38             
          assets and the sale of the purchaser's stock occur in different             
          tax years, whereas in our case they occur in the same year; the             
          first sale in the examples appears to be made to a preexisting              
          member of the group, whereas in our case the transfer is made to            
          a newly created subsidiary organized to do the deal, including              
          the second step; and the examples concern two unrelated sales,              
          whereas the first transaction in our case is a drop-down of                 
          assets that is an integral and necessary step of the plan to                
          accomplish the agreed upon tax-free split-off exchange of shares            
          that is intended to follow.                                                 
          6    Events should be deemed to have a connection for tax                   
          purposes when dictated by the logic of events that has to do with           
          cause and effect relationships and necessary connections or                 
          outcomes.  Under that formulation, there is no connection between           
          the sales in the examples in the sec. 1502 regulation and there             
          is a connection between the drop-down and the split-off in the              
          case at hand.                                                               




Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011