Heiderich v. Commissioner
Opinion
OPINION.
Only one issue is before us and it involves the question whether there has been incurred an ordinary or a capital loss where persons who had received distributions on liquidation of a corporation (capital gains) in a later year were required to satisfy a liability of the corporation as transferees of its assets.
Applicable sections of the Code are set out in the footnote below.2
The Supreme Court in Arrowsmith v. Commissioner, 344 U. S. 6, affirming Commissioner v. Bauer, 193 F. 2d 734, reversing Frederick R. Bauer, 15 T. C. 876, held.that any such loss resulting from satisfaction of transferee liability is a capital loss in the year of payment. We find no basis for a distinction between this case and the case before us. Accordingly, we hold that when the petitioners, as transferees of the assets of the liquidated corporation, paid the debt of the corporation, which included interest on the deficiency up to the date of liquidation, the tax consequence was a capital loss to the transferees in the year of payment.
Decisions will he entered wnder Bule 50.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
19 T.C. 382 (Heiderich v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.