- 26 -
While this Court may not be bound by the Commissioner’s
revenue rulings, and in the appropriate case we could disregard a
ruling or rulings as inconsistent with our interpretation of the
law, see Stark v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 243, 251 (1986), in this
case it is respondent who argues against the principles stated in
his ruling and in favor of our previous pronouncements on this
issue. The Commissioner’s revenue ruling has been in existence
for nearly 25 years, and it has not been revoked or modified. No
doubt taxpayers have referred to that ruling in planning their
charitable contributions, and, indeed, petitioners submit that
they relied upon that ruling in planning the charitable
contributions at issue. Under the circumstances of this case, we
treat the Commissioner’s position in Rev. Rul. 78-197, 1978-1
C.B. 83, as a concession. Accordingly, our decision is limited
to the question whether the charitable donees were legally
obligated or could be compelled to sell the stock warrants at the
time of the assignments.12
12Respondent does not contend that Rev. Rul. 78-197, 1978-1
C.B. 83, is limited to cases involving redemptions. Indeed, the
Commissioner has applied this ruling to factual scenarios which
do not involve stock redemptions. For example, in Priv. Ltr.
Rul. 94-13-020 (Apr. 1, 1994), the Commissioner applied the
ruling favorably to a gift and subsequent sale of farm items by
the trustee of a charitable remainder unitrust. We find that
there is no difference in principle in the application of the
revenue ruling, between a redemption of stock by a corporation
and a sale of stock or stock warrants to an acquiring
corporation.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011