- 66 -
not required, whether the redeeming corporation and the redeemed
shareholder have demonstrated their intention to consummate the
alleged plan in some meaningful way is an important factor.
Bleily & Collishaw, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 757
(“Collishaw had agreed to the sale of all its shares and to the
purchase price. As noted before, the fact that the agreement was
not binding is not dispositive.”); Niedermeyer v. Commissioner,
supra at 291 (“Petitioners could easily have changed their minds
with regard to any intent to donate the preferred stock. Clearly
petitioners’ decision to donate the preferred stock has not been
shown to be in any way fixed or binding.”). If the taxpayer is
the sole shareholder of a closely held corporation and could
easily change his mind regarding the implementation of the
alleged plan, this Court has demanded compelling evidence of the
taxpayer’s commitment to the plan before it will find that a firm
and fixed plan existed. Niedermeyer v. Commissioner, supra at
291. If, however, the taxpayer is a shareholder of a more
broadly held close corporation or a publicly held corporation,
this Court’s analysis has focused primarily on the redeeming
corporation’s commitment to the plan. For example, in Roebling
v. Commissioner, supra at 55, a case involving the periodic
redemption of a banking institution’s preferred shareholders, we
stated that--
While we realize that this redemption plan was
subject to the financial condition of the bank and the
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011