Gerald A. and Henrietta V. Rauenhorst - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         
               afternoon of August 31, 1966, the foundation had the                   
               voting power to prevent the redemption, if it wished to                
               do so.  In these circumstances, at the time of the                     
               gift, the redemption had not proceeded far enough along                
               for us to conclude that the foundation was powerless to                
               reverse the plans of the petitioner.  In light of the                  
               presence of an actual, valid gift and because the                      
               foundation was not a sham, we hold that the gift of                    
               stock was not in substance a gift of the proceeds of                   
               redemption.  [Id. at 695.]                                             
               The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in Rev. Rul. 78-197,               
          1978-1 C.B. 83, acquiesced to our decision in Palmer v.                     
          Commissioner, supra, and in doing so devised a “bright-line” test           
          which focuses on the donee’s control over the disposition of the            
          appreciated property.  Rev. Rul. 78-197, 1978-1 C.B. at 83,                 
          states:                                                                     
                    In Palmer v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 684 (1974),                    
               aff’d on another issue, 523 F.2d 1308 (8th Cir. 1975),                 
               the United States Tax Court held that the Internal                     
               Revenue Service incorrectly treated a gift of stock to                 
               an organization exempt from income taxation pursuant to                
               section 511(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,                
               followed by a prearranged redemption of the stock, as a                
               redemption of the stock from the donor followed by a                   
               gift of the redemption proceeds to the donee. The                      
               Service will follow Palmer on this issue, acq., page 6,                
               this Bulletin.                                                         
                    In Palmer, the taxpayer had voting control of both                
               a corporation and a tax-exempt private foundation.                     
               Pursuant to a single plan, the taxpayer donated shares                 
               of the corporation’s stock to the foundation and then                  
               caused the corporation to redeem the stock from the                    
               foundation. It was the position of the Service that the                
               substance of the transaction was a redemption of the                   
               stock from the taxpayer, taxable under section 301 of                  
               the Code, followed by a gift of the redemption proceeds                
               by the taxpayer to the foundation. The United States                   
               Tax Court rejected this argument and treated the                       
               transaction according to its form because the                          
               foundation was not a sham, the transfer of stock to the                





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011