Parshelsky v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Distribution by a corporation to its sole stockholder of the shares of a newly organized, wholly owned subsidiary to which part of the corporation's property had been transferred, held, on the facts, not pursuant to a "reorganization" nor to come within the nonrecognition provisions of section 112(b)(11), I.R.C. 1939.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
OppeR, Judge:
The issue here is somewhat narrowed by respondent’s concession, which is substantiated by the facts, that the transactions above described met the requirements for a nontaxable reorganization 1 except for the absence of a valid business purpose under the rule of Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465.
The Gregory decision turned on the meaning of the term “reorganization” as used in the revenue act, the Court saying that the statute speaks of a transfer made:
“in pursuance of a plan of reorganization” * * * § 112(g) * * * of corporate business; * * * [Emphasis added.]
as…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gregory v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Pinellas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- LeTulle v. ScofieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Bazley v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Adams v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1945
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Lewis v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1966
- Coates Trust v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Estate of Parshelsky v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Lomas Santa Fe, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- Golden Nugget, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.