- 46 -
Petitioner relies on a test articulated by this Court in
Niedermeyer v. Commissioner, supra at 291. Petitioner claims
that this Court has consistently used the Niedermeyer test to
decide whether a redemption should be integrated with other
allegedly related transactions in order to ascertain the tax
consequences of the redemption. In Niedermeyer, we held that, if
a redemption, standing alone, fails to qualify under section
302(b)(3), the redemption will nevertheless be subject to sale or
exchange treatment “Where there is a plan which is comprised of
several steps, one involving the redemption of stock that results
in a complete termination of the taxpayer’s interest in a
corporation”. Id. at 291. However, we required that “the
redemption must occur as part of a plan which is firm and fixed
and in which the steps are clearly integrated.” Id. Petitioner
describes the Niedermeyer test as a “variation of the step
transaction doctrine” and asserts that “While the test permits
amalgamation of steps that are not subject to an ‘absolutely’
binding contract, it leaves little room for contingency”.
Petitioner relies on this Court’s opinions in Monson v.
Commissioner, 79 T.C. 827, 837 (1982), Roebling v. Commissioner,
77 T.C. 30 (1981), and Bleily & Collishaw, Inc. v. Commissioner,
supra at 756, to support its position. According to petitioner,
each of the three above-cited cases had the following facts in
common: (1) Each case involved a partial redemption that was
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011