Mark J. Steel and Connie J. Steel - Page 22




                                       - 22 -                                         
               In Roth v. Commissioner, supra, we applied the step                    
          transaction doctrine to integrate a redemption of stock with a              
          sale of stock.  An important factor in our decision was that the            
          taxpayer’s interest in the corporation was completely terminated            
          simultaneously with the cash distribution.  In this case, the               
          assignment of the lawsuit and the stock sale did not occur                  
          simultaneously.  Bochica and Norway agreed that the contemplated            
          transactions in the stock sale agreement were to occur at                   
          different times.  The distribution of the lawsuit was to occur at           
          some point before the transfer of the stock to Norway.  Further,            
          the transactions were to occur between different parties.  The              
          lawsuit was to be transferred in the form of a distribution from            
          BFI to Bochica, and the stock transfer was to be in the form of a           
          sale of the stock by Bochica to Norway.  The transactions may               
          have occurred on the same day; however, they were not                       
          simultaneous.  Indeed, petitioners stipulated that the assignment           
          of the lawsuit occurred “prior to the transfer of stock”.  In               
          Smith v. Commissioner, supra at 717, we held that certain                   
          “commissions” paid to the taxpayer in conjunction with a sale of            
          his stock were received as consideration for that stock.13  We              


               13In Smith v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 705 (1984), the stock              
          purchase agreement allocated amounts to be paid to the taxpayer             
          between the purchase price for the stock and “commissions due”.             
          However, we concluded that the stock sale agreement when                    
          construed with a subsequent addendum was ambiguous, and we                  
          declined to apply either the standard enunciated in Commissioner            
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011