From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Comm'r v. Court Holding Co.

U.S.
Mar 12, 1945
324 U.S. 331 (1945)

Summary

holding that the Tax Court was justified in relying on the economic substance doctrine to "attribut[e] the gain from the sale to respondent corporation."

Summary of this case from Kearney Partners Fund, LLC v. United States

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

No. 581.

Argued February 26, 1945. Decided March 12, 1945.

1. There was evidence to support the finding of the Tax Court that the transaction in question — formally a sale by stockholders of property conveyed to them as a "liquidating dividend" — was a sale by the corporation rather than by the stockholders, which finding must therefore be accepted by the courts; and the Tax Court's conclusion that, under § 22 of the Internal Revenue Code, the corporation was taxable on the gain from the sale is sustained. P. 333. 2. That the corporation never executed a written agreement, and that an oral agreement for the sale of realty was unenforcible under the state law, does not require a different result, in view of the Tax Court's finding that the executed sale was in substance a sale by the corporation. P. 334. 143 F.2d 823, reversed.

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 702, to review the reversal of a decision of the Tax Court, 2 T.C. 531, sustaining the Commissioner's determination of a deficiency in income tax.

Assistant Attorney General Samuel O. Clark, Jr., with whom Solicitor General Fahy, Messrs. Sewall Key, Harry Baum, and Miss Helen R. Carloss were on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Maurice Kay, with whom Mr. Charles M. Trammell was on the brief, for respondent.


An apartment house, which was the sole asset of the respondent corporation, was transferred in the form of a liquidating dividend to the corporation's two shareholders. They in turn formally conveyed it to a purchaser who had originally negotiated for the purchase from the corporation. The question is whether the Circuit Court of Appeals properly reversed the Tax Court's conclusion that the corporation was taxable under § 22 of the Internal Revenue Code for the gain which accrued from the sale. The answer depends upon whether the findings of the Tax Court that the whole transaction showed a sale by the corporation rather than by the stockholders were final and binding upon the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Profits from the sale of property are taxable as income under § 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 22. The Treasury Regulations have long provided that gains accruing from the sales of a corporation's assets, in whole or in part, constitute income to it, but that a corporation realizes no taxable gain by a mere distribution of its assets in kind, in partial or in complete liquidation, however much they may have appreciated in value since acquisition. §§ 19.22(a)-19, 19.22(a)-21, Treasury Regulations 103.

It is unnecessary to set out in detail the evidence introduced before the Tax Court or its findings. Despite conflicting evidence, the following findings of the Tax Court are supported by the record:

The respondent corporation was organized in 1934 solely to buy and hold the apartment building which was the only property ever owned by it. All of its outstanding stock was owned by Minnie Miller and her husband. Between October 1, 1939 and February, 1940, while the corporation still had legal title to the property, negotiations for its sale took place. These negotiations were between the corporation and the lessees of the property, together with a sister and brother-in-law. An oral agreement was reached as to the terms and conditions of sale, and on February 22, 1940, the parties met to reduce the agreement to writing. The purchaser was then advised by the corporation's attorney that the sale could not be consummated because it would result in the imposition of a large income tax on the corporation. The next day, the corporation declared a "liquidating dividend," which involved complete liquidation of its assets, and surrender of all outstanding stock. Mrs. Miller and her husband surrendered their stock, and the building was deeded to them. A sale contract was then drawn, naming the Millers individually as vendors, and the lessees' sister as vendee, which embodied substantially the same terms and conditions previously agreed upon. One thousand dollars, which a month and a half earlier had been paid to the corporation by the lessees, was applied in part payment of the purchase price. Three days later, the property was conveyed to the lessees' sister.

The Tax Court concluded from these facts that, despite the declaration of a "liquidating dividend" followed by the transfers of legal title, the corporation had not abandoned the sales negotiations; that these were mere formalities designed "to make the transaction appear to be other than what it was" in order to avoid tax liability. The Circuit Court of Appeals drawing different inferences from the record, held that the corporation had "called off" the sale, and treated the stockholders' sale as unrelated to the prior negotiations.

There was evidence to support the findings of the Tax Court, and its findings must therefore be accepted by the courts. Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U.S. 489; Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467; Commissioner v. Scottish American Investment Co., 323 U.S. 119. On the basis of these findings, the Tax Court was justified in attributing the gain from the sale to respondent corporation. The incidence of taxation depends upon the substance of a transaction. The tax consequences which arise from gains from a sale of property are not finally to be determined solely by the means employed to transfer legal title. Rather, the transaction must be viewed as a whole, and each step, from the commencement of negotiations to the consummation of the sale, is relevant. A sale by one person cannot be transformed for tax purposes into a sale by another by using the latter as a conduit through which to pass title. To permit the true nature of a transaction to be disguised by mere formalisms, which exist solely to alter tax liabilities, would seriously impair the effective administration of the tax policies of Congress.

Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465; Minnesota Tea Co. v. Helvering, 302 U.S. 609; Griffiths v. Commissioner, 308 U.S. 355; Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473.

It is urged that respondent corporation never executed a written agreement, and that an oral agreement to sell land cannot be enforced in Florida because of the Statute of Frauds, Comp. Gen. Laws of Florida, 1927, vol. 3, § 5779. But the fact that respondent corporation itself never executed a written contract is unimportant, since the Tax Court found from the facts of the entire transaction that the executed sale was in substance the sale of the corporation. The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed, and that of the Tax Court affirmed.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Comm'r v. Court Holding Co.

U.S.
Mar 12, 1945
324 U.S. 331 (1945)

holding that the Tax Court was justified in relying on the economic substance doctrine to "attribut[e] the gain from the sale to respondent corporation."

Summary of this case from Kearney Partners Fund, LLC v. United States

holding that it is impermissible to "allow the true nature of a transaction to be disguised by mere formalisms, which exist solely to alter tax liabilities . . . because that would seriously impair the effective administration of the tax policies of Congress."

Summary of this case from Gatz v. Ponsoldt

rejecting "mere formalisms, which exist solely to alter tax liabilities"

Summary of this case from Robino, Inc. Pension Trust v. C.I.R

recognizing step transaction doctrine, whereby courts must consider all steps of transaction in light of entire transaction, so that substance of transaction will control over form of each step

Summary of this case from Lerman v. C.I.R

In Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331 (1945), the Court held that a liquidating corporation could not escape taxation on the gain realized from the sale of its sole asset if the corporation itself had arranged the sale prior to liquidation and distribution of the asset to the shareholders.

Summary of this case from Central Tablet Mfg. Co. v. United States

observing that "incidence of taxation depends upon the substance of a transaction" and that "[t]o permit the true nature of a transaction to be disguised by mere formalisms, which exist solely to alter tax liabilities, would seriously impair the effective administration" of congressional tax policies

Summary of this case from Benenson v. Comm'r

stating that "[t]he incidence of taxation depends upon the substance of a transaction . . . [t]o permit the true nature of a transaction to be disguised by mere formalisms, which exist solely to alter tax liabilities, would seriously impair the effective administration of the tax policies of Congress."

Summary of this case from Shepherd v. C.I.R

In Commissioner v. Court Holding, 324 U.S. 331, 334 (1945), Justice Black reminded us that to allow the true nature of a transaction to be disguised by mere formalisms is to run the risk of impairing seriously the effective administration of tax policies established by Congress.

Summary of this case from LC SPRINGS ASSOC. v. COMMISSIONER, INT. REV

In Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981 (1945), the Court held that, if a corporation plans the sale of its assets and distributes the assets to its shareholders as part of its liquidation, then, when the shareholders sell the assets according to the corporation's plan, the proceeds are taxable to both the corporation and the shareholders.

Summary of this case from Montelepre Systemed, Inc. v. C.I.R

creating step transaction doctrine, whereby courts must consider all steps of transaction in light of entire transaction, so that substance of transaction will control over form of each step

Summary of this case from Kirchman v. C.I.R

In C.I.R. v. Court Holding Co., supra, 324 U.S. at 334, 65 S.Ct. at 708, the Supreme Court stated that "the transaction must be viewed as a whole, and each step, from the commencement of negotiations to the consummation of the sale, is relevant."

Summary of this case from Smith v. C. I. R

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Company, 1945, 324 U.S. 331, 334, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981, 985, the Supreme Court said: "The incidence of taxation depends upon the substance of a transaction.

Summary of this case from United States v. Ingalls

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Co., 1945, 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981, the Supreme Court taxed a corporation on the gain from the sale of an apartment house notwithstanding a transfer of the house to the corporation's two stockholders before the sale, since it found that the transfer was made solely to set in a more favorable tax form a sale which in reality was made by the corporation.

Summary of this case from Blueberry Land Company v. C.I.R

In Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 1945, 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981, the Supreme Court taxed a corporation on the gain from the sale of an apartment house notwithstanding a transfer of the house to the corporation's two shareholders before the sale, since it found that the transfer was made solely to set in a more favorable tax form a sale which in reality was made by the corporation.

Summary of this case from United States v. General Geophysical Company

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Co., 1945, 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981, it was found that the corporation itself had negotiated the sale of its assets, followed by liquidation and transfer of legal title by the shareholders.

Summary of this case from Hawaiian Trust Company Ltd. v. United States

In Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981 (1945), the stock of a corporation whose sole asset was an apartment house was exclusively owned by Minnie Miller and her husband.

Summary of this case from Master Eagle Associates, Inc. v. U.S.

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981 (1945), the question presented was whether the corporation was taxable on the gain realized by a sale of its assets.

Summary of this case from West Shore Fuel, Inc. v. United States

In Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331 (, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981) (1945), 1945 C.B. 58, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a sale of property by the shareholders of a corporation after receipt of the property as a liquidating distribution was taxable to the corporation when the corporation had in fact conducted all the negotiations and the terms of the sale had been agreed upon prior to the distribution of the property.

Summary of this case from General Housewares Corp. v. United States

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981 (1945), the Supreme Court held that if the liquidating corporation sold the assets, the corporation as well as the shareholders were taxable for any gains realized.

Summary of this case from Manilow v. United States

In Commissioner of Int. Rev. v. Court Holding Co. (1945) 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981, the corporate owner of an apartment house negotiated with a third party for sale of the property, which was the sole corporate asset.

Summary of this case from Rollins v. United States

In Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., [ 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 708] all of the outstanding stock of a corporation was owned by a husband and wife, who had organized the corporation in 1934 "solely to buy and hold the apartment building which was the only property ever owned" by the corporation.

Summary of this case from McNair Realty Company v. United States

In Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981 (1945), the taxpayer, a corporation, had negotiated an oral agreement to sell an apartment building, which was its sole asset, and had received a deposit from the purchaser.

Summary of this case from In re A.J. Lane Co., Inc.

In Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331 (1945), the Supreme Court reinstated a Tax Court holding which had imputed the gain from a subsequent sale of distributed property to the distributing corporation.

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

In Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331 (1945), all of the outstanding stock of a corporation was owned by a husband and wife who had organized the company in 1934 for the single purpose of acquiring title to an apartment building, which was the only asset ever owned by the corporation.

Summary of this case from Bolker v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

In Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331, the Supreme Court taxed a corporation on the gain from sale of an apartment house notwithstanding a transfer of the house to the corporation's two shareholders before the sale, since it found that the transfer was made solely to set in a more favorable tax form, a sale which in reality was made by the corporation.

Summary of this case from Brown v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case details for

Comm'r v. Court Holding Co.

Case Details

Full title:COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v . COURT HOLDING CO

Court:U.S.

Date published: Mar 12, 1945

Citations

324 U.S. 331 (1945)
65 S. Ct. 707

Citing Cases

Hallowell v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

In such cases the transferee has commonly been referred to as a ‘conduit’ through which the transferor has…

Martin Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner

In so doing, respondent determined that Martin Ice Cream Co. (MIC or petitioner) recognized taxable gain of…