Reddy v. Commissioner

66 T.C. 335, 1976 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 24, 1976
DocketDocket No. 469-74
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 66 T.C. 335 (Reddy 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
Reddy v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 335, 1976 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102 (tax 1976).

Opinion

Fay, Judge:

Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,630 in petitioners’ Federal income tax for 1970. We are to decide whether certain stock which became worthless during that year was issued in accordance with the requirements of section 12441 so as to entitle petitioners to ordinary loss treatment under that section.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Certain facts were stipulated by the parties.

Petitioners John J. and Margaret C. Reddy are husband and wife who filed their joint Federal income tax return for the year in issue at Denver, Colo. They resided in Denver, Colo., at the time their petition was filed with this Court.

Prior to 1968, petitioners operated an authorized Chevrolet automobile dealership in Castle Rock, Colo. Early in 1968, they received from the General Motors Corp. a tentative offer to operate a new Oldsmobile franchise in North Kansas City, Mo. As a matter of course, General Motors requires that their potential franchisees demonstrate a credit standing sufficient to enable them to borrow a specified amount for adequate capitalization. In this instance, General Motors required that petitioner make a capital stock contribution of about $84,000.

To show General Motors that they had secured these funds, petitioners on June 10, 1968, deposited with the National Bank of North Kansas City two checks totaling $84,000. In view of the fact that no franchise for the proposed corporation had as yet been granted by General Motors, petitioners deposited these funds in a special account in their own name. These funds were later applied to the corporation’s account, comprising the initial capital funding for the new corporation.

Petitioners were aware of the difficulties they might encounter in beginning an automobile dealership in a large, unfamiliar city. Since they were investing a large portion of their savings in the venture, they were concerned with insulating themselves as much as possible from an adverse outcome.

Consequently, in planning their proposed corporation, petitioners met frequently with their accountant who advised them of the advantages of which they might avail themselves by issuing stock in accordance with the provisions of section 1244.

By the time the articles of incorporation were signed, petitioners understood the implications of section 1244 and fully desired and intended that the shares in their proposed corporation be issued under that provision. In fact, it was their intention to condition the issuance of the stock on the adoption of a plan that met the requirements of section 1244.

Petitioners authorized a Kansas City attorney to prepare the articles of incorporation for their proposed corporation. On June 10, 1968, petitioners signed the articles of incorporation of the Reddy Oldsmobile, Inc. (hereinafter Reddy Oldsmobile). Included in the articles were the names and addresses of the initial subscribers of shares and the number of shares subscribed for, as follows:

John J. Reddy_ csi Oi lO 00
Margaret C. Reddy (N
Charles B. Reddy . (N

Additionally, the articles state:

The number of shares to be issued before the corporation shall commence business is eighty-five thousand seven hundred ninety-six (85,796) shares of common stock, with a par value of One Dollar ($1.00) per share, or an aggregate of Eighty-Five Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Six Dollars ($85,796.00), which said capital has been fully paid up in cash and is in the hands of the first Board of Directors hereinafter named. (Emphasis supplied.]

Petitioners, however, neither read nor understood the articles before signing them. In fact, such capital had not been paid in, and the first board of directors was not named therein and had yet to come into existence.

Subsequent to June 10, 1968, petitioners were informed that they had been accepted as a franchisee by the General Motors Corp.

On June 17, 1968, the articles of incorporation of the Reddy Oldsmobile, Inc., were filed by the secretary of state of the State of Missouri, at which time a certificate of incorporation was issued.

The first board of directors of Reddy Oldsmobile was elected at a meeting of the shareholders held on June 21, 1968. On this date, the board met and adopted a written plan purporting to comply with the requirements of section 1244. The stock certificates were thereupon signed, dated, and delivered. Reddy Oldsmobile commenced business and began selling cars to the public on July 11,1968.

Petitioners’ stock in Reddy Oldsmobile, which was acquired at a total cost of $85,794, became totally worthless during 1970. On their Federal income tax return for 1970, petitioners deducted $50,000 of their basis in that stock as an ordinary loss incurred on the sale or exchange of stock issued in accordance with the requirements of section 1244.

OPINION

In issue is the character of the loss, whether capital or ordinary, sustained by petitioners when their stock became worthless during the year in issue. Specifically, we must ascertain whether the stock on which petitioners have claimed an ordinary loss met the requirements of section 1244.

Section 1244 provides that shareholders in a small business corporation can, if certain requirements are met, take an ordinary loss deduction on the worthlessness of their stock.2 In order to qualify as stock issued pursuant to that section, such stock must be issued subsequent to the adoption of a written plan to offer such stock.

Respondent maintains that none of the stock qualifies as section 1244 stock, having been issued prior to the adoption of any such plan. It is his position that under Missouri corporation law,3 the preincorporation subscriptions were accepted and petitioners became shareholders when the corporation came into existence on June 17. Consequently, he argues, the stock was issued on the date of incorporation, 4 days prior to the adoption of the section 1244 plan on June 21.

In our view, respondent’s argument overlooks an important consideration. At the time the articles of incorporation were filed, petitioners fully intended for their stock to issue under section 1244. They had previously discussed the matter with their accountant and had informed him that this was the course they wished to pursue. It is clear that this idea was fully framed in petitioners’ minds as part of a plan conceived prior to the formation of the corporation and was in no way an afterthought on their part. In faet, it was their intention that the stock subscriptions be conditioned on the adoption of a section 1244 plan.

In accordance with their intentions, we therefore hold that the stock did not issue before the plan was adopted on June 21. Sec. 1.1244(c)-l(c)(3), Income Tax Regs.4

Furthermore, we find the decision in Wesley H Morgan, 46 T.C. 878 (1966), on which respondent herein relies, to be readily distinguishable.

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

Related

Gilboy v. Commissioner
1978 T.C. Memo. 114 (U.S. Tax Court, 1978)
Bonacci v. Commissioner
1977 T.C. Memo. 172 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)
Denemark v. Commissioner
1976 T.C. Memo. 267 (U.S. Tax Court, 1976)
Reddy v. Commissioner
66 T.C. 335 (U.S. Tax Court, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 T.C. 335, 1976 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reddy-v-commissioner-tax-1976.