- 24 -
(9th Cir. 1992), that the obligation to purchase Ms. Arnes’ stock
was Mr. Arnes’ obligation, and not the obligation of Moriah,
controlled our decision in Arnes v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 522
(1994). The Commissioner did not ask us in Arnes v. Commis-
sioner, supra, to determine whether the on-behalf-of standard in
Q&A-9 was met as a result of the transfer by Ms. Arnes, who was
not a party before us in that case, of her Moriah stock to that
company. With respect to the Commissioner’s reliance on Golsen,
we held in Arnes v. Commissioner, supra at 529:
Golsen v. Commissioner, supra, does not apply
because Arnes v. United States, supra, does not address
the legal issue here: whether there is a constructive
dividend to petitioner [Mr. Arnes]. That case con-
cerned the tax consequences to Joann [Ms. Arnes] under
section 1041. * * * We note that petitioner was not a
party in Arnes [v. United States, supra], and Joann had
a possibly3 adverse position to petitioner in that
case.[12]
On the facts presented, we found that Mr. Arnes did not have a
primary and unconditional obligation13 to buy Ms. Arnes’ Moriah
12We stated in footnote 3 referred to in the foregoing
excerpt from Arnes v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 522, 529 n.3 (1994):
This majority opinion does not express an opinion
as to whether the standard of “on behalf of” the spouse
in sec. 1.1041-1T(c), Q&A-9, Temporary Income Tax Regs.
* * * is the same as the primary and unconditional
obligation rule applicable to a constructive dividend.
Suffice it to say that our conclusion in this case
[Arnes v. Commissioner, supra] is consistent with our
conclusion in Blatt v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 77
(1994), also a Court-reviewed opinion.
13Unlike the divorce judgment involved in the instant cases,
(continued...)
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