Lencard Corp. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Petitioner realized no gain on liquidation and retirement of all of its outstanding preferred stock.
1Opinion of the Court
*60OPINION.
Arundell:
If the real nature of the foregoing transaction was the sale of assets of petitioner in consideration of the receipt of its own shares of preferred stock, a gain was realized and respondent must prevail. Art. 22 (a)-16, Regulations 86; Commissioner v. Boca Ceiga Development Co., 66 Fed. (2d) 1004; Allyne-Zerk Co. v. Commissioner, 83 Fed. (2d) 525, affirming 29 B. T. A. 1194. If, on the other hand, the transaction was essentially the liquidation of petitioner’s outstanding preferred stock, petitioner realized no gain. Art. 22 (a)-21, Regulations 86; Meurer Steel Barrel Co., 11…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Helvering v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- General Utilities & Operating Co. v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
3Cited by8 opinions
- Esmark, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- Johnson, Carvell & Murphy v. RiddellDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1959
- Union Starch & Refining Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- Esmark, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- Farmers Union Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1960
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.