Litton Indus. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
A dividend declared by a wholly owned subsidiary and paid by a promissory note prior to commencement of efforts by the parent to dispose of the subsidiary is held to be a dividend and not part of the selling price.
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
CLAPP, Judge:
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal corporate income tax for the year ended July 29, 1973, in the amount of $11,583,054. After concessions, the issue for decision is whether Litton Industries received a $30 million dividend from Stouffer Corp., its wholly owned subsidiary, or whether that sum represented proceeds from the sale of Stouffer stock to Nestle Corp.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated by this reference.
Litton…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gregory v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Waterman Steamship Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
- Crellin's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- Waterman S.S. Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968
- Commissioner of Internal Rev. v. TR Miller Mill Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1939
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Freeland v. Enodis Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
- Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., and Its Subsidiary, Super Market Developers, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
- Merrill Lynch & Co. v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2003
- Uniroyal, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1993
- Consolidated Indus v. Enodis CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.