Miller v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Where, by a contract between a corporation and the stockholders of another corporation, the first corporation acquired all of the stock of the second, three fourths for cash and one fourth by exchange for a minority interest of its own stock, held, there was no reorganization within the meaning of section 112(i)(1) of the Revenue Act of 1928.
1Opinion of the Court
*1067OPINION.
Marquette:
The petitioners assert that they are not taxable on the gain arising from the exchange of part of their stock in the News Co. for a part of the stock of Publications, Inc. They con*1068tend that there was a reorganization within the meaning of subsection (i) (1) of section 112 of the Eevenue Act of 1928, with the result that subsections (b) (3) and (c) (1) of the same section apply.
Subsection (i) (1) provides:(1) The term “reorganization” means (A) a merger or consolidation (including the acquisition by one corporation of at least a majority of the voting stock and at least a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pinellas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Minnesota Tea Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Watts v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Central Nat'l Bank v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
3Cited by2 opinions
- Denison v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1977
- Miller v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934