Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. & Subsidiaries - Page 50




                                       - 50 -                                         
          III.  Analysis of the Nine Cross-Chain Sales                                
               A.  In General                                                         
               Each party claims that the applicable legal standard is                
          clear and that the legal standard, when applied to the facts,               
          supports a decision in that party’s favor.  The parties rely on             
          many of the same cases to support their respective positions.               
          The parties’ arguments, however, are so diametrically opposite              
          regarding their interpretation of the cases that we must turn to            
          an examination of the principal cases on which both parties                 
          rely.34  A careful examination of the pertinent facts and                   
          holdings of these cases is necessary to respond adequately to the           
          parties’ detailed and often tortured parsing of these cases in              
          support of their respective arguments.                                      



               34Petitioner also relies on several anticipatory dividend              
          cases to bolster its arguments regarding the cross-chain sales.             
          See TSN Liquidating Corp., Inc. v. United States, 624 F.2d 1328             
          (5th Cir. 1980); Litton Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.               
          1086 (1987); Gilmore v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 1321 (1956); Coffey           
          v. Commissioner, 14 T.C. 1410 (1950); Rosenbloom Fin. Corp. v.              
          Commissioner, 24 B.T.A. 763 (1931).  In each of the anticipatory            
          dividend cases decided by this Court, we held that a                        
          corporation’s distribution of a dividend to a shareholder before            
          the shareholder sold his stock was taxable as a dividend and not            
          as part of the later stock sale.  The dividend transactions did             
          not involve the exchange of stock for consideration.  We agree              
          with respondent that the anticipatory dividend cases are                    
          distinguishable from this case, and we do not consider them                 
          further.  See Bittker & Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of                 
          Corporations and Shareholders, par. 8.07[2][a], at 8-66 (7th ed.            
          2002) (“In order to obtain the hoped-for dividend result, it is             
          important that the selling shareholder not surrender any of its             
          target stock to the corporation because use of the redemption               
          format will likely trigger sale treatment.”)                                





Page:  Previous  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011