- 86 -
legal standard. If we are not going to adopt the view that the “on
behalf of” and “primary and unconditional obligation” standards are
to be applied consistently, so that there need not be a winner and a
loser as between the ex-spouses, then Mr. Read should not be bound by
his “indication”. My objective in making this suggestion, against
the background of what we said and did in Blatt v. Commissioner, 102
T.C. 77 (1994), Hayes v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 593 (1993), and Arnes
and our unsuccessful efforts to reach agreement in this case, is to
resolve it in a way that will result in a holding on the merits of
the cases of both ex-spouses that will provide comprehensive guidance
for future cases. The parties and their counsel and the public and
the tax bar, who are looking to us for guidance in this recurring
situation, deserve no less.
Unfortunately, the majority opinion’s rejection of a rule of
equivalence perpetuates the uncertainty. What “every schoolboy
knows,” compare State Pipe & Nipple Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1983-339, about how to avoid constructive dividend treatment to the
remaining shareholder under traditional redemption tax law will
continue, as a result of the variety of views expressed, to fail to
provide the guidance that the divorcing spouses and their advisers
deserve and need.
I renew my pleas for guidance in the form of an interpretative
regulation or a Congressional fix. See Arnes v. Commissioner, 102
T.C. 542 n.10.
Page: Previous 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011