Ralston Purina Co. v. Comm'r
United States Tax Court
P, a Missouri corporation, claimed a deduction under I.R.C. sec. 404(k) for payments made to its employee stock ownership plan in redemption of P's preferred stock owned by the plan, where the proceeds of that payment were distributed to employees terminating their participation in the plan.
Read the full summary
P, a Missouri corporation, claimed a deduction under I.R.C. sec. 404(k) for payments made to its employee stock ownership plan in redemption of P's preferred stock owned by the plan, where the proceeds of that payment were distributed to employees terminating their participation in the plan. R argues that payments to redeem stock are not deductible under either I.R.C. sec. 404(k)(1) or (5), or in the alternative that deduction of these payments is barred by the provisions of I.R.C. sec. 162(k). Held: I.R.C. sec. 162(k) renders the payments nondeductible because the payments are in connection…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NlMS, Judge:
Before the Court are petitioner’s and respondent’s cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121.
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.
Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summary judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. Full or partial summary judgment may be granted only if it is demonstrated that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that the legal…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Jack E. Golsen and Sylvia H. Golsen v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1971
- Sundstrand Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Sundstrand Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1992
- Fort Howard Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1994
- Portland Golf Club v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Conopco, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
- Nestlé Purina Petcare Co. v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
- General Mills, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2009
- General Mills, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2009
- Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. CIRCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.