- 23 -
irrelevant to our analysis since neither party is advocating for
the application of the open transaction doctrine in the present
case. Indeed, the fact that Conner Malaysia discounted and
valued the restricted shares in 1991 indicates that they treated
the asset sale as a closed transaction in 1991. Petitioner
nevertheless argues that the logic and analysis used in Likins-
Foster Honolulu Corp. v. Commissioner, 840 F.2d 642 (9th Cir.
1988), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-572 and Dimond v. United States (In
re Steen), 509 F.2d 1398 (9th Cir. 1975), are controlling in the
instant case, even though those cases did not cite Arrowsmith v.
Commissioner, supra, and were decided using the open transaction
doctrine. We disagree. While similarities may exist between
relation-back cases and open transaction cases, they nonetheless
involve different principles, and we simply cannot rely on cases
that were decided based on the open transaction doctrine in
order to decide a case that, neither party disputes, involved a
closed transaction.
Petitioner acquired the Read-Rite shares at a set price
which was not at all dependent on what it subsequently obtained
from unrelated third parties upon the sale of the restricted
shares. Petitioner did not introduce any evidence that Conner
Malaysia and Read-Rite intended the asset price to be determined
after the Read-Rite shares were sold or the restrictions lapsed.
The fact that Conner Malaysia assumed the risk that it was
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011