Haserot v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioners controlled corporations H, N, and G. Petitioners transferred to H all of their N and G stock and received in return $ 64,850 cash and H stock worth $ 48,640. Held, since section 351, I.R.C. 1954, applies, the language of sections 302(d) and 301(a) precludes dividend treatment despite the fact that section 304 also applies.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
This case involves one of those unusual situations where a transaction comes within the literal language of two sections of the Code2— 351 and 304. For purposes of section 351 (a), (b),3 there was a transfer of property (Nortliport and Gypsum stock) in exchange for stock in a corporation (Company) that was controlled (owned at least 80 percent of the stock) immediately thereafter by the transferor (petitioner). For purposes of section 304(a) (1),4 one person (petitioner) was in control (direct or constructive ownership of at least 50 percent of the stock) of three corporations…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- J. C. Penney Company, Transferee v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- National Securities Corp. v. Com'r of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943
- J. C. Penney Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
- National Sec. Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1942
- Easson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1960
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Darby v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991
- Verito v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1965
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. John M. Stickney, of the Estate of Henry McK Haserot, and Bonnie C. HaserotCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
- Hempt Bros., Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- Haserot v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1966
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.