Murrin v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
The absence of a written plan will not preclude a reorganization pursuant to plan within the meaning of section 112 (b), 1939 Code, if the actual circumstances warrant a finding that such a reorganization occurred. If 72 per cent of the shareholders of the transferor corporation participate and own 100 per cent control of the transferee, section 112 (g) (1) (D) is satisfied.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Van Fossan, Judge:
The deficiencies are based upon respondent’s determination that certain transactions of the petitioners which occurred in 1944 constitute a partial liquidation of Fireproof, the resultant gain being taxable under section 115 (c) of the Internal Bevenue Code of 1939.1 Petitioners contend that the transaction comes within the statutory definition of a corporate reorganization as set out in section 112 (g) (1) (D),2 and that any gain from such a reorganization was within the nonrecognition provision of section 112 (b) (3).3
The issue is pivoted upon a conveyance of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Weiss v. StearnSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Minnesota Tea Co. v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Survaunt v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1947
- Starr v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1936
- Helvering v. New Haven & S. L. R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Lesser v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956
- Grubbs v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
- Estate of Parshelsky v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Howard v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955
- Mills v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.