Henritze v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Shares of stock, received in a reorganization under an agreement, stamped on the certificates, not to sell them for a year without the banker's consent, held not to be without fair market value. 2. Evidence of the price of such shares, similar but unrestricted, in active trading on the New York Curb Market at the time when the restricted shares were received by the taxpayer, held more probative of fair market value of such restricted shares than evidence of book value or…
Read the full summary
1. Shares of stock, received in a reorganization under an agreement, stamped on the certificates, not to sell them for a year without the banker's consent, held not to be without fair market value. 2. Evidence of the price of such shares, similar but unrestricted, in active trading on the New York Curb Market at the time when the restricted shares were received by the taxpayer, held more probative of fair market value of such restricted shares than evidence of book value or the past earnings of either of the corporations involved in the reorganization.
1Opinion of the Court
*1175OPINION.
Sternhagen :
The petitioners, having owned all of the shares of the Snodgrass Co., carried out an agreement whereby they first exchanged such shares for cash and shares of the Delaware corporation and then immediately exchanged the shares of the Delaware corporation for shares of the Maryland corporation, thus leaving the parties in the same situation as if there had been a technical merger or consolidation of the Snodgrass corporation and the Maryland corporation. There was, therefore, a statutory reorganization, sec. 112 (i) (1), Revenue Act of 1928. Pinellas Ice & Cold Storage Co.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lucas v. EarlSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Pinellas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Walter v. DuffyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1923
- Minnesota Tea Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Tex-Penn Oil Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hazeltine Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1937
- St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Haberman v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Woodard v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Krauss v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1943
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.