Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. & Subsidiaries - Page 54




                                       - 54 -                                         
          the distribution and their subsequent gift of their AT&T                    
          preferred stock were parts of a single plan to completely                   
          terminate their actual and constructive ownership of AT&T before            
          the end of 1966.                                                            
               In Niedermeyer, this Court acknowledged that, where there is           
          a plan consisting of a redemption and one or more other steps               
          that results in a complete termination of the taxpayer’s interest           
          in a corporation, section 302(b)(3) may apply.  Niedermeyer v.              
          Commissioner, supra at 291 (citing in support Leleux v.                     
          Commissioner, 54 T.C. 408 (1970); Estate of Mathis v.                       
          Commissioner, 47 T.C. 248 (1966)).  The Court emphasized,                   
          however, that the redemption “must occur as part of a plan which            
          is firm and fixed and in which the steps are clearly integrated.”           
          Id.                                                                         
               After searching the record for evidence in support of the              
          taxpayers’ alleged plan, the Court concluded that the evidence              
          presented was “too insubstantial to prove the existence of such a           
          plan.”  Id.  Among the facts on which the Court relied were the             
          following:                                                                  
               (1) The alleged plan was not in writing, and there was no              
          indication that the taxpayers communicated their donative                   
          intention to the charity or to anyone.                                      
               (2) The taxpayers’ son who testified at trial about the                
          Lents stock acquisition did not mention any desire on the                   






Page:  Previous  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011