- 15 - transaction is, in substance, similar to the grant of an option. See id. Next we consider whether the risk that the property will decline in value has been transferred. Sec. 1.83-3(a)(2), Income Tax Regs. The focus here should not be on whether the taxpayer is personally liable, as petitioners suggest, but on whether the risk was transferred from the employer. Facq v. Commissioner, supra. When Allegiance transferred the shares, it no longer bore the risk of a decline in value. The risk was borne by either Mrs. Racine or CIBC. Which one bore the risk is irrelevant because, regardless, Allegiance no longer had the risk because of the transfer. Facq v. Commissioner, supra; Palahnuk v. United States, supra. Accordingly, this factor weighs against finding that the substance of the transaction was the same as the grant of an option. Palahnuk v. United States, supra. Finally, we consider the likelihood the purchase price will be paid. Sec. 1.83-3(a)(2), Income Tax Regs. This factor examines whether the purchase price for the property is paid, not whether the indebtedness incurred to pay the purchase price will be paid. Facq v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-111; Facq v. United States, 363 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (W.D. Wash. 2005); Hilen v. Commissioner, supra; Miller v. United States, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2004). Allegiance received the exercise price of the shares (plus funds from Mrs. Racine’s margin account to fundPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011