- 47 -
I disagree with the contention in Judge Ruwe’s dissenting
opinion at 65-66 that Q&A-9 applies to redemptions only if the
redemption satisfies a primary and unconditional obligation of
the spouse whose stock is not being redeemed. As stated by the
majority, that requirement is not contained in or implied by the
phrase “on behalf of”. I also disagree with the contention in
the dissenting opinion of Judges Laro and Marvel that Q&A-9 does
not apply to corporate redemptions or that it applies only to
transfers to a third party to satisfy an obligation owed by the
nontransferring spouse to the third party. By their terms,
section 1041(a) and Q&A-9 apply broadly to transfers of property
“incident to divorce”, which are “on behalf of” the other
(nontransferring) spouse. By choosing the “on behalf of” lan-
guage, the Secretary appropriately defined eligibility for
section 1041(a) broadly, as did Congress. Q&A-9 does not state
that it does not apply to redemptions, or that it applies only to
transfers to a third party to satisfy an obligation owed by the
nontransferring spouse to the third party. Where the Secretary
uses broad language to provide eligibility for a rule of
nonrecognition, we need not and ought not supply our own excep-
tions. Application of section 1041 and Q&A-9 to redemptions
furthers the legislative purpose of making a transfer of property
incident to divorce tax free in the case of a closely held
corporation owned by a married couple. In his dissent p. 58,
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011