Case Reviewed George L. Riggs, Inc. v. CIR., 64 TC 474 (1975), acq. 1976-2 C.B. 2.

Topics: Shareholder, Stock, Stock market Pages: 2 (565 words) Published: October 7, 2013

Case Reviewed George L. Riggs, Inc. v. CIR., 64 TC 474 (1975), acq. 1976-2 C.B. 2.

Facts
Sec. 332, I.R.C. 1954, applicable to avoid recognition of gain on liquidation of subsidiary. Taxpayer owned 80% of the stock of the subsidiary on the date of the adoption of the plan of liquidation within the meaning of sec. 332(b). The respondent argues that at the time of the adoption of the liquidation, the petitioner did not owned more than 80% of the subsidiary’s stock. Therefor, no Sec. 332 benefit should be taken, resulting in a deficiency in petitioner's income tax for the taxable year ended March 31, 1969, in the amount of $589,882.28. On the other hand, petitioner contends that the plan of liquidation was adopted after the ownership of 80% of the subsidiary. In addition, the petitioner also contends that Section 332 is an elective section and a taxpayer, by taking appropriate steps, can render that section applicable or inapplicable.

Issues
Whether George L. Riggs, Inc. owned at least 80% of the outstanding stock of Riggs-Young at the time Riggs-Young adopted a plan of liquidation within the meaning of Section 332. Therefore the gain on the liquidation for George L. Riggs, Inc. is not to be recognized.

Decision
George L. Riggs, Inc. owned at least 80% of the outstanding stock of Riggs-Young at the time Riggs-Young adopted a plan of liquidation within the meaning of Section 332. The gain on the liquidation realized by George L. Riggs, Inc. is not to be recognizable.

Reasons
1. The Court could not accept respondent’s contention that the plan of liquidation of Riggs-Young was informally adopted on December 27, 1967, or no later than April 1968, alludes to actions and statements made in connection therewith taken between December 1967 and June 1968.

2. The argue of respondent saying that the letter dated December 13, 1967, clearly indicates that the shareholders at the meeting on December 27, 1967, intended to approve not only the sale of the...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Essay about Tesla Case study 2
  • Case 2 Essay
  • unit 2 Essay
  • 2 Essay
  • Essay about Case 2. Healthy Foods, Inc.
  • Essay about case 2
  • Case #2 Essay
  • Case 2 Research Paper

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free