- 22 -
that sale. Therefore, although it is not addressed by the
parties, we believe that the parties’ mutual understanding that
the deemed liquidation of H&C was to be “effective immediately
prior to” the sale of the H&C stock raises an issue as to whether
that deemed liquidation should be treated as occurring (1)
“immediately prior to” the sale, whether that sale occurred on
June 30 or July 11, 1997, or (2) regardless of the actual date of
sale, immediately before the close of business on June 29, 1997,
the day before the effective date of the disregarded entity
election, as specified in the Form 8832 filed by H&C. We find it
unnecessary to resolve that issue, however, because, as discussed
infra section V.C., our decision does not depend upon the length
of time between the deemed liquidation of H&C and the actual sale
of its stock (i.e., deemed sale of its assets).
Because resolution of the date-of-sale issue is unnecessary
to our decision in this case, the issue as to whether
respondent’s duty of consistency argument should be stricken is
essentially moot.
3. Conclusion
Petitioner’s motion to strike will be denied.
B. Respondent’s Objection to Stipulated Exhibits
The exhibits to which respondent objects on the grounds of
relevance were all executed in connection with the sale of the
H&C stock to Thyssen. They were introduced by petitioner in
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011