Gerald A. and Henrietta V. Rauenhorst - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
          proceeds rather than an interest in a viable corporation.”  Id.             
          at 346; see also Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577, 581 (2d              
          Cir. 1994); Jones v. United States, supra at 1346; S.C. Johnson &           
          Son, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 786.                                    
               2. Arguments of the Parties                                            
               Petitioners filed a motion for partial summary judgment and            
          argue that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on              
          the issue of whether they must account for the gains realized on            
          the sales of the assigned warrants.  Petitioners rely on                    
          Carrington v. Commissioner, 476 F.2d 704 (5th Cir. 1973),6 and              
          Rev. Rul. 78-197, supra, and they argue that where the donees are           


               6In Carrington v. Commissioner, 476 F.2d 704 (5th Cir.                 
          1973), affg. T.C. Memo. 1971-222, the taxpayer was the sole                 
          shareholder in a corporation that was, in turn, a partner in a              
          partnership.  The taxpayer also belonged to a church that was               
          interested in acquiring a rectory.  The partnership owned a                 
          residence which was suitable for a rectory, and, accordingly, the           
          taxpayer initiated a series of transactions for the purpose of              
          placing that residence into the hands of the church “at the                 
          maximum tax benefit” to the taxpayer:  (1) The taxpayer                     
          transferred 51 of the 100 outstanding shares in the corporation’s           
          stock to the church; (2) the partnership then conveyed the                  
          residence to the corporation; and (3) the corporation conveyed              
          the residence to the church in redemption of the church’s 51                
          shares.  The Commissioner applied the step transaction doctrine,            
          treated the taxpayer as receiving the residence in redemption of            
          his stock and then transferring the residence to the church, and            
          determined that the taxpayer realized dividend income.  Both this           
          Court and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to             
          ignore the “gift step” and held that the taxpayer did not realize           
          an actual or constructive dividend on the redemption of the 51              
          shares.  The Court of Appeals stressed that the church had full             
          title and full dominion and control over the contributed stock,             
          and it was under no prior obligation to redeem its shares.  Id.             
          at 709.                                                                     





Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011