Martin Ice Cream Company - Page 2

                                                - 2 -                                                   
                  chains and food service accounts, and business records                                
                  relating thereto, in exchange for all the stock of SIC,                               
                  and immediately distributed the SIC stock to A in                                     
                  exchange for all of A's stock in MIC.  Following                                      
                  further negotiations, A and SIC, 3 weeks thereafter,                                  
                  entered into a contract to sell HD all their intangible                               
                  assets relating to distribution of HD ice cream                                       
                  products.  Two weeks thereafter, following the                                        
                  determination of a purchase price adjustment provided                                 
                  for in the final version of the contract, the sale                                    
                  closed and SIC received the proceeds of sale, which it                                
                  distributed to A.                                                                     
                        1. Held:  The benefits of the personal relation-                                
                  ships developed by A with the supermarket chains and                                  
                  A's oral agreement with the founder of HD were not                                    
                  assets of MIC that were transferred by MIC to SIC and                                 
                  thereafter sold by SIC to HD; A was the owner and                                     
                  seller of those assets.                                                               
                        2. Held, further, respondent's attempt to apply                                 
                  Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331 (1945),                               
                  to regard MIC as the seller of assets to HD is rejected                               
                  because the final sale to HD was on terms that were                                   
                  negotiated with HD by A and SIC that were significantly                               
                  different from the terms of the earlier proposed                                      
                  transaction under negotiation between MIC and HD.                                     
                        3. Held, further, MIC's distribution of SIC stock                               
                  to A was not entitled to nonrecognition of gain under                                 
                  sec. 355, I.R.C., because SIC was not engaged in the                                  
                  active conduct of a trade or business after the                                       
                  distribution of SIC stock to A.                                                       
                        4. Held, further, although MIC's transfer of                                    
                  intangible assets to SIC in exchange for SIC stock was                                
                  entitled to nonrecognition of gain under sec. 351,                                    
                  I.R.C., the immediate distribution of SIC stock in                                    
                  redemption of A's stock in MIC was a distribution of                                  
                  appreciated property under secs. 311(b) and 317(b),                                   
                  I.R.C., on which recognized gain in the amount of                                     
                  $141,000 is taxable to MIC under sec. 1374, I.R.C.                                    
                        5. Held, further, MIC is not liable for a                                       
                  negligence addition to tax under sec. 6653(a), I.R.C.,                                
                  but is liable for a substantial understatement addition                               
                  under sec. 6661, I.R.C.                                                               
                                                                                                       





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