Thomas Henry Koppel - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          distribution.  Petitioner bears the burden of proof.7  Rule                 
          142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).                    
               A.  Sufficiency of BCE’s Earnings and Profits                          
               Petitioner contends that BCE had insufficient earnings and             
          profits to make a dividend and that, as a result, the                       
          distribution of Nortel stock constituted a return of capital.               
          According to petitioner, BCE’s retained earnings statement is               
          incorrect.  The retained earnings statement describes the total             
          value of the Nortel shares distributed to BCE’s shareholders as             
          equal to approximately $10 billion.  Petitioner asserts, however,           
          that the total value of the Nortel stock distribution was                   
          actually approximately $59 billion, which amount exceeded BCE’s             
          earnings and profits.                                                       
               We cannot accept petitioner’s argument.  Not only has                  
          petitioner failed to offer any credible evidence in support of              
          his contention, the retained earnings statement clearly reflects            
          that BCE made the Nortel stock distribution from BCE’s earnings             
          and profits.                                                                
               B.  Reduction of the Distribution Amount                               
               As his second argument, petitioner contends that, on the               
          effective date of the Nortel stock distribution, BCE’s8 stock               

               7Petitioner has not argued that respondent bears the burden            
          of proof, nor has petitioner satisfied the requirements of sec.             
          7491(a)(1).                                                                 
               8Petitioner’s argument specifically mentioned BCE’s stock.             
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011