- 6 -
unless registered or opined by counsel to be excepted from
registration.
We agree with respondent that petitioner received the
subject distribution during 2000.2 Contrary to petitioner’s
assertion, the transfer of the subject shares from Olson’s
account to petitioner’s account, to be effective, did not require
that a new certificate be issued to reflect a change of name from
that of the owner shown on certificate number 6278. As the Court
noted in Meyer v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 65, 106 (1966), revd. on
other grounds 383 F.2d 883 (8th Cir. 1967), the act of a transfer
agent in recording an ownership change in stock is a
“ministerial, bookkeeping act”, and a change in stock ownership
may occur without any action by a transfer agent and without
regard to whether new certificates are issued to reflect the
transfer. See also Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 (1930)
(“taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title
as it is with actual command over the property taxed”); Byrne v.
Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1632, 1639 (1970) (“an economic interest in
a corporation may arise although a certificate of stock
evidencing such interest has not yet been issued in the name of
the owner”), affd. 449 F.2d 759 (8th Cir. 1971). Accord
2 We decide this issue without regard to which party bears
the burden of proof. We note, however, that taxpayers generally
bear the burden of proof in this Court and that petitioner has
not asserted in her brief that respondent bears the burden of
proof in this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011