Ronald A. Anderson and Marilyn J. Anderson, Cross-Appellees v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross-Appellant

Seventh Circuit

Ronald A. Anderson and Marilyn J. Anderson, Cross-Appellees v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross-Appellant

583 F.2d 953, 42 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5876, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9005

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedSeptember 15, 1978

Docket77-2238

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 583 F.2d 953 (Ronald A. Anderson and Marilyn J. Anderson, Cross-Appellees v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross-Appellant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ronald A. Anderson and Marilyn J. Anderson, Cross-Appellees v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross-Appellant, 583 F.2d 953, 42 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5876, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9005 (7th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This taxpayer appeal presents two issues:

1. When § 422 * stock options given to employees of subsidiary corporations to acquire stock of the parent are exercised, is the difference between the fair market value of the stock and the purchase price a proper charge against the earnings and profits of the subsidiary corporation rather than of the issuing parent corporation?

2. In determining whether a § 301 ordinary corporate distribution constitutes a dividend under § 316(a)(2) and thus is included in the recipient’s gross income, § 301(c), are the earnings and profits of the distributing corporation to be determined as of the close of the fiscal year without diminution in the amount of a § 302(a) redemption distribution made during the year?

We answer both questions in the affirmative.

In a case presenting questions of such difficulty and so ably briefed and orally argued on both sides, we would ordinarily expect, and indeed be expected, to issue a published opinion. After studying the briefs and hearing the oral argument, how *954 ever, in this “recondite matter,” as counsel for the government aptly described it in oral argument, we find ourselves not only in agreement with, but unable to improve upon, the Tax Court’s analysis of the two issues presented. We therefore affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the Tax Court in its opinion ruling on these issues, reported at 67 T.C. 522, 543-570 (1977).

AFFIRMED.

*

This and other references herein are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, U.S.C.

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

PER CURIAM.

This taxpayer appeal presents two issues:

1. When § 422 * stock options given to employees of subsidiary corporations to acquire stock of the parent are exercised, is the difference between the fair market value of the stock and the purchase price a proper charge against the earnings and profits of the subsidiary corporation rather than of the issuing parent corporation?

2. In determining whether a § 301 ordinary corporate distribution constitutes a dividend under § 316(a)(2) and thus is included in the recipient’s gross income, § 301(c), are the earnings and profits of the distributing corporation to be determined as of the close of the fiscal year without diminution in the amount of a § 302(a) redemption distribution made during the year?

We answer both questions in the affirmative.

In a case presenting questions of such difficulty and so ably briefed and orally argued on both sides, we would ordinarily expect, and indeed be expected, to issue a published opinion. After studying the briefs and hearing the oral argument, how *954 ever, in this “recondite matter,” as counsel for the government aptly described it in oral argument, we find ourselves not only in agreement with, but unable to improve upon, the Tax Court’s analysis of the two issues presented. We therefore affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the Tax Court in its opinion ruling on these issues, reported at 67 T.C. 522, 543-570 (1977).

AFFIRMED.

*

This and other references herein are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, U.S.C.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

583 F.2d 953, 42 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5876, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-a-anderson-and-marilyn-j-anderson-cross-appellees-v-commissioner-ca7-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack