John R. Thompson Securities Corp. v. Commissioner

33 B.T.A. 1011
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedFebruary 6, 1936
DocketDocket No. 51765
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 33 B.T.A. 1011 (John R. Thompson Securities Corp. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John R. Thompson Securities Corp. v. Commissioner, 33 B.T.A. 1011 (bta 1936).

Opinion

[1018]*1018OPINION.

Leech:

Petitioner contends that the basis for determining gain or loss on its disposition of securities acquired on May 18, 1923, in the transaction heretofore detailed, is their fair market value on that date. It has so computed its gain reported in its returns for the years in question. Respondent contends that the acquisition of these securities by petitioner was under conditions which bring the transaction within section 204 (a) (8) of the Revenue Act of 1926 and that the proper basis to petitioner for computing gain or loss on resale is the basis of such securities, in each instance, to the parties from whom they were acquired.

Section 204 (a)1 of the Revenue Act of 1926 provides that the basis for determining gain or loss from sale or other disposition of property after February 28, 1913, shall be the cost of such property, with certain exceptions set out in detail. It is stipulated that the fair market value of the assets conveyed to petitioner on May 18, 1923, by John R. Thompson, his wife, daughter, and a trustee holding certain of the securities in exchange for all of its capital stock, was the sum of $9,599,222.50. It necessarily follows that this is the fair market value of petitioner’s stock issued in exchange and therefore the cost to petitioner of these securities. If another basis than such cost is to be used in determining gain or loss on resale, the circumstances of the acquisition must be such as to bring the transaction within one of the exceptions declared in the cited section.

In the transaction the tax results of which are now in dispute, this petitioner acquired more than 50 percent of the preferred and more than 50 percent of the common stock of the John R. Thompson Co. It also acquired, in the same transaction, securities in other cor[1019]*1019porations, but representing, in no case, a majority of the stock of any such corporation. The consideration paid by petitioner for the acquisition of this property was all of its stock, held thereafter by the sellers.

The transaction, in which the stock of the John R. Thompson Co. was transferred to petitioner constituted a “reorganization” within the definition of section 203 (h) (l)2 of the Revenue Act of 1926. Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co., 296 U. S. 378; Helvering v. Watts, 296 U. S. 387; G. & K. Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner, 296 U. S. 389, all decided December 16, 1935.

It necessarily follows that the John E. Thompson Co. was a “party to a reorganization” under section 203 (h) (2)3 of the Eevenue Act of 1926.

An examination of section 204 shows that subsections (6), (7), and (8) embody the only exceptions controlling voluntary exchanges for a consideration as was the one here in question. It is apparent that subparagraph (6) is not applicable to the acquisition of the John E. Thompson Co’s, stock since it excludes “property acquired by the corporation by issuance of its stock or securities as the consideration in whole or in part for the transfer of the property to it.” Furthermore, subsections (7) and (8) are not applicable because each exempts specifically “stock or securities in a corporation a party to a reorganization.”

Thus, since the acquisition by petitioner of the stock of the J ohn E. Thompson Co. constituted a reorganization and such stock was that of a party to the reorganization, it is excluded from the exceptions set out in section 204 (a). Consequently, the basis for determining gain or loss from its sale or other disposition by petitioner is its cost to the latter.

[1020]*1020In addition to the stock of the John R. Thompson Co. petitioner acquired, in the transaction set out in the stipulation, certain other securities as a consideration for stock issued to John R. Thompson. The circumstances of this acquisition appear to bring it- squarely within the provisions of section 20é (a) (7), heretofore set out in the margin.

We think it clearly established that these securities were acquired by petitioner in connection with a reorganization, and that they did not represent “stock or securities in a corporation a party to a reorganization.” Immediately after the transfer of such securities by Thompson to petitioner he was the owner of approximately 90 percent of the stock of petitioner.

We hold that petitioner’s basis for determining gain or loss upon its disposition of these securities is the basis of such securities to the transferor, John R. Thompson. Stires Corporation, 28 B. T. A. 1; Holmby Corporation, 28 B. T. A. 1092.

The deficiencies should be redetermined in accordance with the conclusions herein reached and with the stipulated adjustments.

Judgment will be entered under Rule SO.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carmen Centrale, Inc. v. Descartes
75 P.R. 320 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1953)
Rollestone Corp. v. Commissioner
38 B.T.A. 1093 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 B.T.A. 1011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-r-thompson-securities-corp-v-commissioner-bta-1936.