First Seattle D. H. Nat'l Bank v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. A contract is not divisible where its terms are made interdependent and to be performed simultaneously. 2. Purchases and sales at par, of corporate preferred stocks, upon which the dividends are regularly paid, are evidence that the fair market value of the stocks is at least par.
1Opinion of the Court
*1246OPINION.
Seawell:
The petitioners contend, in the first place, that the contract of February 15,1926, is a divisible one and that the exchange of preferred stock of the Seattle corporation for preferred stock of the Chicago corporation is a distinct and separable transaction from the sale of 500 shares of the Chicago corporation for $50,000; and that under subsection (b) (2) of section 203 of the Eevenue Act of 1926, no gain should be recognized in the exchange of stock for stock, for the exchange was made in pursuance of a plan of reorganization and as contemplated in that section. This…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ray Consolidated Copper Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Wilson v. SpringIllinois Supreme Court · 1872
- Heywood v. Doernbecher Mfg. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1906
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lorenzo Alvary v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Zappo v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1983
- First Seattle D. H. Nat'l Bank v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Lorenzo Alvary v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Turner v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.