Gerald A. and Henrietta V. Rauenhorst - Page 18




                                       - 18 -                                         
          relies, there was a pending “global” transaction for the purchase           
          and sale of all the stock of a corporation at the time of the               
          gift or transfer at issue.  He then surmises that because                   
          Carrington and Rev. Rul. 78-197, supra, did not involve a pending           
          “global” transaction, the legal principles of those authorities             
          do not apply.  Instead, he argues that we must apply the                    
          principles of the cases he relies upon, and, accordingly, we must           
          conduct a detailed factual inquiry for purposes of determining              
          whether the sale of the stock warrants had ripened to a practical           
          certainty at the time of the assignments.                                   
               We cannot agree that respondent has effectively                        
          distinguished Carrington and Rev. Rul. 78-197, supra, on their              
          facts.  First, neither this Court nor the Courts of Appeals have            
          adopted respondent’s theory of a pending “global” transaction as            
          a means of distinguishing cases such as Carrington and Palmer v.            
          Commissioner, 62 T.C. 684 (1974).  Indeed, the caselaw in this              
          area applies essentially the same anticipatory assignment of                
          income principles to cases of a “global” nature as those                    
          applicable to cases of a “nonglobal” nature.  See, e.g., Greene             
          v. United States, supra at 581.  We can only interpret                      
          respondent’s use of the phrase “pending global transaction” as              
          simply a restatement of the principles contained in the cases               
          upon which he relies.  Thus, we cannot agree that respondent’s              
          reliance on a pending global transaction distinguishes either               






Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011