Simon v. Commissioner

1982 T.C. Memo. 8, 43 T.C.M. 269, 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 738
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 11, 1982
DocketDocket Nos. 830-77, 831-77, 832-77.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1982 T.C. Memo. 8 (Simon 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
Simon v. Commissioner, 1982 T.C. Memo. 8, 43 T.C.M. 269, 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 738 (tax 1982).

Opinion

JOSEPH SIMON and JONNIE H. SIMON, ET AL., 1 Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Simon v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 830-77, 831-77, 832-77.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1982-8; 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 738; 43 T.C.M. (CCH) 269; T.C.M. (RIA) 82008;
January 11, 1982.

*738 Held, the distribution to the shareholders pursuant to a reorganization has the effect of a distribution of a dividend within the meaning of section 356(a)(2) and their gain realized is to be treated as a dividend to the full extent of the boot property received.

William S. Duke, for the petitioners.
Thomas R. Thomas, for the respondent.

SCOTT

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION

SCOTT, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income tax for the years and in the amounts as follows:

Fiscal Year
PetitionersEndedDeficiencies
Joseph and Jonnie H. Simon1974$ 4,175
Warner L. and Hazel Mathis197413,267
John M. Beard, Jr.19744,621

On December 27, 1978, the original Findings of Fact and Opinion of this Court was filed, , and on April 16, 1979, the decision of this Court was entered. Respondent appealed our decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and on April 17, 1981, that Court remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion, *740 . The opinion stated in part ():

Since the Tax Court held the distribution in this case was incident to a liquidation rather than a reorganization, it did not reach the issue of whether the distribution had "the effect of a dividend" within the meaning of section 356(a)(2). We therefore remand the case to the Tax Court for resolution of that issue and of the ultimate tax liability of the taxpayers.

The Court of Appeals did not disturb our Findings of Fact and we will not repeat those findings herein except as they relate to the character of the distribution. The parties were given the opportunity to file briefs with respect to this issue on remand and they both filed a notice of intent not to file any additional briefs.

Pursuant to the remand, we must determine the character of the distribution to the shareholders of Capital Sales, Inc. (Sales). Where a shareholder receives a distribution of "boot" property in connection with a reorganization, section 356(a)(1) 2 provides that the shareholder's gain realized on the exchange of stock will be recognized but only in the amount of*741 the boot received. With respect to the character of the recognized gain, section 356(a)(2) provides that if the exchange "has the effect of the distribution of a dividend," then the gain recognized will be treated as a dividend to the extent of the shareholder's ratable share of the corporation's accumulated earnings and profits. The balance of the recognized gain, if any, is to be treated as gain from the exchange of property, that is, capital gain, absent dealer status and section 1221(1).

*742 After the sale of its operating assets to Southern Sash Supply Co. (Supply), Sales dissolved and distributed cash in the amount of $ 111,786.84 and stocks of a value of $ 23,864 to its shareholders in liquidation. The cash and stocks were distributed to each of the shareholders in accordance with their percentage ownership in Sales. Mr. and Mrs. Mathis, Mr. Beard, and Mr. Simon collectively owned 94.44 percent of Sales prior to its dissolution, and 98 percent of Supply during the period here in issue. From these facts, it is clear there was a pro rata distribution to the shareholders by Sales. Such a pro rata distribution has consistently been held to have the effect of a dividend within the meaning of section 356(a)(2). , affg. ; ; .

We must then determine the extent to which the boot distributed constitutes a dividend. Section 356(a)(2) provides that a shareholder's gain recognized will be treated as a dividend to*743 the extent of his ratable share of the accumulated earnings and profits of the corporation. It is our position that only the earnings and profits of the transferor corporation should be taken into account in this determination. Atlas Tool Co. v. Commissioner, supra, 70 T.C. at 107; . This case is appealable to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. However, it would have been appealable to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals prior to the establishment of the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit has announced--

that the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit, as that court existed on September 30, 1981, handed down by that court prior to the close of business on that date, shall be binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit * * *. [.]

Since petitioners held 94.44 percent of the stock of Sales and 98 percent of the stock of Supply, the instant case is not distinguishable from , reversing on this issue and affirming*744 on other issues . Therefore, despite our consistent holding to the contrary, under the rule of , affd.

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

Related

Godbold v. Commissioner
82 T.C. No. 7 (U.S. Tax Court, 1984)
Di Andrea, Inc. v. Commissioner
1983 T.C. Memo. 768 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1982 T.C. Memo. 8, 43 T.C.M. 269, 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simon-v-commissioner-tax-1982.