- 29 -
Respondent reaffirmed his Rev. Rul. 75-223 position in Rev.
Rul. 77-376, 1977-2 C.B. 107. He also reaffirmed that position
in subsequent private letter rulings.12 See, e.g., Priv. Ltr.
Rul. 2003-01-029 (Jan. 3, 2003), Priv. Ltr. Rul. 2000-04-029
(Jan. 28, 2000), and Priv. Ltr. Rul. 87-04-063 (Oct. 29, 1986),
applying the principles of Rev. Rul. 75-223 in finding partial
liquidation distributions under section 302(b)(4) and (e)(2).
Respondent has also reaffirmed his Rev. Rul. 75-223 position
in the context of transactions other than partial liquidations.
See, e.g., Priv. Ltr. Rul. 80-19-058 (Feb. 13, 1980), involving
an amalgamation of a United States shareholder’s Country X CFCs,
which qualified as a “corporate acquisition” within the meaning
of section 381. Pursuant to the amalgamation, CFC F1 contributed
the stock of its subsidiary, F2, to a new CFC, Newco 1, in
exchange for Newco 1 stock and debentures, the latter
consideration constituting a dividend to F1 under section
356(a)(2). Newco 1 combined with several operating company CFCs,
three of which were same country (Country X) subsidiaries of F1,
to form Newco II. In the private letter ruling, the Commissioner
12 Private letter rulings may be cited to show the practice
of the Commissioner. See Rowan Cos. v. United States, 452 U.S.
247, 261 n.17 (1981); Hanover Bank v. Commissioner, 369 U.S. 672,
686-687 (1962); Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157, 170 n.8
(2002); Estate of Cristofani v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 74, 84 n.5
(1991); Woods Inv. Co. v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 274, 281 n.15
(1985).
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011