- 79 -
BEGHE, J., dissenting: As a long-time continuing proponent
of the view that the “on behalf of” standard of Q&A-9 applying
section 1041 should be equated with the “primary and uncondi-
tional obligation” standard of traditional redemption tax law,
see Arnes v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 522, 531-542 (1994) (Beghe,
J., concurring); Blatt v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 77, 85-86 (1994)
(Beghe, J., concurring), I have joined the dissenting opinions of
Judges Ruwe and Halpern. However, I write on to express my own
views of how the cases of Mr. and Mrs. Read should be decided and
to try to provide some perspective on the variety of expressed
views about the decisions and their governing rationales.
Two preliminary observations are in order.
First, it is not accurate to say, as does the majority
opinion: “Respondent’s role here is that of a stakeholder”1
(majority op. at 17). Mr. Read and MMP have much more at stake
than Mrs. Read because the combined deficiencies of Mr. Read and
MMP substantially exceed Mrs. Read’s deficiencies:2 Mrs. Read
1 Defined by Black’s Law Dictionary 1412 (7th ed. 1999) as:
“A disinterested third party who holds money or property, the
right to which is disputed between two or more parties.”
(Emphasis supplied.)
2 The writer observed in Arnes v. Commissioner, 102 T.C.
522, 541 (1994) (J. Beghe, concurring):
Hewing to the bright line rules of Rev. Rul. 69-
608, supra, in the marital dissolution context will
reduce the tax costs of divorce for the owners of small
businesses held and operated in corporate form. If the
shareholder spouses can negotiate their separation
(continued...)
Page: Previous 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011