Kuchman v. Commissioner

U.S. Tax Court

Kuchman v. Commissioner

18 T.C. 154

CourtUnited States Tax Court

DecidedApril 30, 1952

DocketDocket No. 29434

StatusPublished

This text of 18 T.C. 154 (Kuchman v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kuchman v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 154 (tax 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION.

Opper, Judge:

Respondent’s opinion witnesses and petitioner on brief agree that a purchaser could not be found for the stock in question with its contractual restrictions. Although respondent now seeks to rely on the testimony of one of petitioner’s opinion witnesses, this evidence on analysis is obviously a valuation of the stock, not from the standpoint of a purchaser from petitioner, but as of the time and under the circumstances that the underwriters distributed it. Since fair market value is defined as the price at which the property to be valued with all its attributes would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller generally, Andrew B. C. Dohrmann, 19 B. T. A. 507, 513, and not as the sale might be limited to one specific purchaser, see Estate of Millie Langley Wright, 43 B. T. A. 551; Heiner v. Crosby (C. A. 3), 24 F. 2d 191, we have concluded that the ascertainment of fair market value cannot be founded on this testimony.

The finding has accordingly been made that the property had no ascertainable fair market value in the hands of petitioner. Under these circumstances acquisition of the stock does not justify charging petitioner in the year of its receipt with income in any amount. Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Co., 300 U. S. 481, 577; Propper v. Commissioner (C. A. 2), 89 F. 2d 617; Schuh Trading Co. v. Commissioner (C. A. 7), 95 F. 2d 404; Morris D. Kopple, 35 B. T. A. 1056. Cf. Robert Lehman, 17 T. C. 652.

This disposition of the matter as an issue of fact, see Gould Securities Co. v. United States (C. A. 2), 96 F. 2d 780; Blanchard v. Commissioner (C. A. 3), 184 F. 2d 438, makes unnecessary consideration of the legal questions involved in the issuance of stock to an employee at a price below its fair market value. See Delbert G. Geeseman, 38 B. T. A. 258; Norman G. Nicolson, 13 T. C. 690; Wanda V. Van Dusen, 8 T. C. 388, affd. (C. A. 9) 166 F. 2d 647; cf. Commissioner v. Smith, 324 U. S. 177.

Reviewed by the Court.

Decision will be entered for the-petitioners.

KerN, Van Fossan, Haioion, and Raum, JJ., dissent.

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

OPINION.

Opper, Judge:

Respondent’s opinion witnesses and petitioner on brief agree that a purchaser could not be found for the stock in question with its contractual restrictions. Although respondent now seeks to rely on the testimony of one of petitioner’s opinion witnesses, this evidence on analysis is obviously a valuation of the stock, not from the standpoint of a purchaser from petitioner, but as of the time and under the circumstances that the underwriters distributed it. Since fair market value is defined as the price at which the property to be valued with all its attributes would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller generally, Andrew B. C. Dohrmann, 19 B. T. A. 507, 513, and not as the sale might be limited to one specific purchaser, see Estate of Millie Langley Wright, 43 B. T. A. 551; Heiner v. Crosby (C. A. 3), 24 F. 2d 191, we have concluded that the ascertainment of fair market value cannot be founded on this testimony.

The finding has accordingly been made that the property had no ascertainable fair market value in the hands of petitioner. Under these circumstances acquisition of the stock does not justify charging petitioner in the year of its receipt with income in any amount. Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Co., 300 U. S. 481, 577; Propper v. Commissioner (C. A. 2), 89 F. 2d 617; Schuh Trading Co. v. Commissioner (C. A. 7), 95 F. 2d 404; Morris D. Kopple, 35 B. T. A. 1056. Cf. Robert Lehman, 17 T. C. 652.

This disposition of the matter as an issue of fact, see Gould Securities Co. v. United States (C. A. 2), 96 F. 2d 780; Blanchard v. Commissioner (C. A. 3), 184 F. 2d 438, makes unnecessary consideration of the legal questions involved in the issuance of stock to an employee at a price below its fair market value. See Delbert G. Geeseman, 38 B. T. A. 258; Norman G. Nicolson, 13 T. C. 690; Wanda V. Van Dusen, 8 T. C. 388, affd. (C. A. 9) 166 F. 2d 647; cf. Commissioner v. Smith, 324 U. S. 177.

Reviewed by the Court.

Decision will be entered for the-petitioners.

KerN, Van Fossan, Haioion, and Raum, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 T.C. 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuchman-v-commissioner-tax-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack