- 16 -
The only authority cited by petitioner in support of its
position is Tech. Adv. Mem. 96-27-003 (Feb. 28, 1996).12 The
TAM concluded that the definition of “redemption” in section
317(b) may have some general application in the determination of
whether a redemption took place for the purposes of section
1.1502-13(f)(1), Income Tax Regs. Petitioner reads into this
that respondent’s administrative position was that the definition
of property set forth in section 317(a) is similarly relevant to
the interpretation of the consolidated return regulations. This
assumption is inaccurate. In G.C.M. 39,608 (Mar. 5, 1987),13
respondent determined that the gain realized on a consolidated
subsidiary’s distribution of its parent’s stock to its parent in
a section 311 transaction resulted in a deferral of gain pursuant
to section 1.1502-14(c)(1), Income Tax Regs. The G.C.M. found
the stock of the parent corporation to be “property” for purposes
of the consolidated return regulations even though the stock was
held by the parent as treasury stock after the distribution. The
G.C.M. concurrently looked to the section 317(b) definition of
12Technical advice memoranda (TAMs) and private letter
rulings have no precedential value but merely represent the
Commissioner’s position as to a specific set of facts. See sec.
6110(k)(3); Bunney v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. ___, ___ n.2 (2000)
(slip op. at 5).
13A general counsel memorandum is a legal opinion from one
division of the Commissioner’s Office of Chief Counsel to another
and is not binding on this Court. See Old Harbor Native Corp. v.
Commissioner, 104 T.C. 191, 207 (1995).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011