- 23 -
cordingly, under respondent's concession, our resolu-
tion of the constructive dividend issue in Mr. Hayes'
case renders the section 1041 issue in Ms. Hayes' case
moot. [Id. at 606; emphasis added.]
We did not decide any issue in Hayes under Q&A-9 and section
1041.10
Similarly, the only issue that we decided in Arnes v.
Commissioner, supra, was whether the redemption by a corporation
known as Moriah, which was owned equally by the taxpayer Mr.
Arnes who was before us and his former spouse Ms. Arnes who was
not before us,11 of Ms. Arnes’ Moriah stock resulted in a con-
structive dividend to Mr. Arnes. See Arnes v. Commissioner,
supra at 527. The Commissioner’s position in Arnes was that at
the time of that redemption Mr. Arnes had a primary and uncondi-
tional obligation to buy Ms. Arnes’ Moriah stock. Therefore,
according to the Commissioner, he received a constructive divi-
dend as a result of Moriah’s redemption of that stock. In
support of that position, the Commissioner argued that, under
Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985
(10th Cir. 1971), the conclusion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in Arnes v. United States, 981 F.2d 456, 459
10Any suggestion in Hayes v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 593
(1993), that the Commissioner’s concession under sec. 1041 as to
Ms. Hayes is confirmed by Q&A-9 is dictum.
11Ms. Arnes was the taxpayer before the U.S. Court of Ap-
peals for the Ninth Circuit in Arnes v. United States, 981 F.2d
456 (9th Cir. 1992), discussed below.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011