Mark J. Steel and Connie J. Steel - Page 18




                                       - 18 -                                         
               the sale of the stock in Birting Fisheries, Inc. to                    
               Norway Seafoods.                                                       
                    o.  Rather than derailing the entire sale of the                  
               stock in Birting Fisheries, Inc., due to their                         
               inability to arrive at a value for the claim which                     
               would be reflected in the purchase price stated in the                 
               Stock Purchase Agreement, Norway Seafoods and BOCHICA                  
               Partners agreed that the claim itself would be                         
               transferred to the owners of the stock in Birting                      
               Fisheries, Inc. who were selling their stock to Norway                 
               Seafoods, or to the designee of those shareholders.                    
                    p.  The transfer of the claim to or for the                       
               benefit of the shareholders of Birting Fisheries, Inc.                 
               was intended by the parties to the Stock Purchase                      
               Agreement as a solution to the problem of their                        
               inability to agree upon the value of the claim for                     
               inclusion in the financial statements of Birting                       
               Fisheries, Inc. upon which the purchase price was to be                
               based.                                                                 
          Assuming we accept petitioners’ statements of fact as true, and             
          that the sale of stock to Norway precipitated the distribution of           
          the lawsuit by BFI, we cannot conclude that these factors require           
          the characterization petitioners suggest.  See Nahey v.                     
          Commissioner, 196 F.3d at 869.  If anything, those factors group            
          this case with cases dealing with the distribution of unwanted              
          assets before a stock transaction.  See, e.g., West v.                      
          Commissioner, 37 T.C. 684 (1962); Coffey v. Commissioner, 14 T.C.           
          1410 (1950) (wherein we declined to treat corporate distributions           
          to the taxpayers as part of the purchase price for their stock).            
               If petitioners are correct that the substance of the                   
          transactions herein is the receipt of the lawsuit as part of the            
          BFI stock sale, we must recognize that BFI first distributed the            






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