One of the questions remaining unanswered after United States v. Davis is whether loss of control over corporate acts requiring supermajority stockholder approval constitutes a meaningful reduction in a shareholder\u27s proportionate interest so as to qualify for sale or exchange treatment under section 302(b)(1). Recently, in Revenue Ruling 78-401, the Service ruled that such a limited loss of control does not qualify, contrary to two cases holding that it does. The author analyzes the rationale underlying the use of control to test for essential equivalency to a dividend and concludes that the test established in Revenue Ruling 78-401 is correct
When a taxpayer sells property and receives a purchaser\u27s obligation in exchange, the Internal Re...
Petitioner owned more than three-fourths of the stock in a corporation whose shares had a par value ...
Ordinarily, distributions by a personal holding company qualify for the dividends paid deduction onl...
One of the questions remaining unanswered after United States v. Davis is whether loss of control ov...
This Article discusses the requirements of section 302(b) for characterizing a stock redemption as a...
The Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Ninth Circuits are in conflict on the question of whether se...
Among the sections added to the revised version of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was section 306...
This Article reviews the redemption provisions of both section 302 and section 304 of the Internal R...
Max Schuster operated a wholesale business in semi-precious stones in the form of a sole proprietors...
X corporation had two classes of stock outstanding. The Class A stock was a preferred stock entitled...
P and B owned all the outstanding shares of X Corporation. In 1937 P purchased B\u27s shares and gav...
Taxpayer, a corporate shareholder, received from the corporation a distribution of property which ha...
The Tax Reform Act of 1976 limited the use of Section 303 by estates of shareholders of closely held...
Section 356(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue. Code requires the recipient of boot in a corporate reorga...
In 1946 petitioner received a pro-rata dividend of preferred stock of the distributing corporation, ...
When a taxpayer sells property and receives a purchaser\u27s obligation in exchange, the Internal Re...
Petitioner owned more than three-fourths of the stock in a corporation whose shares had a par value ...
Ordinarily, distributions by a personal holding company qualify for the dividends paid deduction onl...
One of the questions remaining unanswered after United States v. Davis is whether loss of control ov...
This Article discusses the requirements of section 302(b) for characterizing a stock redemption as a...
The Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Ninth Circuits are in conflict on the question of whether se...
Among the sections added to the revised version of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was section 306...
This Article reviews the redemption provisions of both section 302 and section 304 of the Internal R...
Max Schuster operated a wholesale business in semi-precious stones in the form of a sole proprietors...
X corporation had two classes of stock outstanding. The Class A stock was a preferred stock entitled...
P and B owned all the outstanding shares of X Corporation. In 1937 P purchased B\u27s shares and gav...
Taxpayer, a corporate shareholder, received from the corporation a distribution of property which ha...
The Tax Reform Act of 1976 limited the use of Section 303 by estates of shareholders of closely held...
Section 356(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue. Code requires the recipient of boot in a corporate reorga...
In 1946 petitioner received a pro-rata dividend of preferred stock of the distributing corporation, ...
When a taxpayer sells property and receives a purchaser\u27s obligation in exchange, the Internal Re...
Petitioner owned more than three-fourths of the stock in a corporation whose shares had a par value ...
Ordinarily, distributions by a personal holding company qualify for the dividends paid deduction onl...