HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
v.
WATTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In December 1924, three stockholders of United States Ferro Alloys Corporation exchanged all their stock for shares of Vanadium Corporation of America and mortgage bonds guaranteed by Vanadium, claiming the transaction qualified as a tax-free reorganization under the Revenue Act of 1924. The Supreme Court affirmed that the transaction constituted a valid reorganization under Treasury Regulation Article 1574, holding that the bonds received were securities rather than taxable "other property" and therefore no taxable gain resulted from the exchange.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
These causes involved deficiency assessments for income tax against the three respondents for the year 1924.
They were the sole stockholders of United States Ferro Alloys Corporation — herein Ferro Alloys — and the causes, alike in all essential particulars, were dealt with below in one opinion.
The respondents maintain that they exchanged all stock of Ferro Alloys for shares of Vanadium Corporation of America and bonds of Ferro Alloys guaranteed by Vanadium; that these two corporations were parties to a reorganization, and that under § 203 (b) (2), Revenue Act, 1924, no taxable gain resulted. The Commissioner insists that the transaction was a sale of all the stock of the Ferro Alloys and therefore taxable gain resulted. The applicable statutory provision is § 203, Revenue Act, 1924, the pertinent parts of which are in the margin of the opinion in Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co., ante, p. 378.
In December, 1924, respondents owned all the stock of Ferro Alloys Corporation. They exchanged this with the Vanadium Corporation, for stock of the latter valued at $30 per share and for $1,161,184.50 mortgage bonds of Ferro Alloys guaranteed by Vanadium. Ferro Alloys continued to conduct business until its dissolution in 1928. Article 1574 of Treasury Regulations 65 provided that under the Act of 1924 no gain or loss shall be recognized to the shareholders from the exchange of stock made in connection with the reorganization, if two or more corporations reorganize, for example, by either the sale of the stock of B to A, or the acquisition by A of a majority of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock of B. The transaction here involved is within the description of reorganization recognized by the Treasury Regulation above quoted. And if the regulation can be taken as properly interpreting the statute, the challenged judgment must be affirmed.
The court below recites the history of the Treasury Regulation above quoted and concludes that, in view of the reenactment of the paragraph to which it refers without change, Congress intended to approve the regulation as written.
The Commissioner here maintains that the definition of reorganization found in § 203 (h) (1) (A), Revenue Act, 1924, should be limited to transactions which partake of the nature of mergers or consolidations and that here the Vanadium merely made an investment in Ferro Alloys stock and obtained only the rights of a stockholder therein. It is also urged that an exchange of stocks for bonds results in a substantial change of position and that such bonds are “ other property” within the meaning of the statute and as such subject to tax. Much of the argument presented is the same as the one considered in the Minnesota Tea Company case, and it need not be again followed in detail. The bonds, we think, were securities within the definition and cannot be regarded as cash, as were the short term notes referred to in Pinellas Ice Co. v. Commissioner, 287 U. S. 462.
The judgment of the court below must be
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
LeTULLE v. Scofield, 308 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1940)…t of 1928, c. 852, 45 Stat. 791, 818. 103 F. 2d 20. Pinellas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Commissioner, 287 U S. 462. Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co., 296 U. S. 378. Nelson Co. v. Helvering, 296 U. S. 374. 45 Stat. 816, 818. See Helvering v. Watts, 296 U. S. 387. Worcester Salt Co. v. Commissioner, 75 F. 2d 251; Lilienthal v. Commissioner, 80 F. 2d 411, 413; Burnham v. Commissioner, 86 F. 2d 776; Commissioner v. Kitselman, 89 F. 2d 458; Commissioner v. Freund, 98 F. 2d 201; Commissioner v. Tyng, 106 F. 2d…
-
Groman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 302 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1937)…tain cases with respect to which doubt might arise.” Regulations 65, Art. 1577, applicable to § 203 (hi) (2) of the Revenue Act of 1924; Regulations 69, Art. 1577, applicable to § 203 (h) (2) of the Revenue Act of 1926. Compare Helvering v. Watts, 296 U. S. 387. Compare Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co., 296 U. S. 378; G. & K. Manufacturing Co. v. Helvering, 296 U. S. 389. Section 112, Subsections (i) (1) (B) and (j). Pinellas Ice Co. v. Commissioner, 287 U. S. 462, 470; Nelson Co. v. Helvering, 296 U. S.…
-
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 85 F.2d 187 (8th Cir. 1936)…y the testimony offered in the case and they should base their determination on the evidence and not the presumption. So, in the instant case, the court may have instructed, as it should have done [Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U.S. 280, 56 S.Ct. 190, 80 L.Ed. 289; United States v. Le Due (C.C.A. 8) 48 F.(2d) 789; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Niemann (C.C.A. 8) 47 F.(2d) 1056], that in view of the evidence pro and con on the question at issue, the presumption had been entirely removed from the case and should b…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pinellas ICE & Cold Storage Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 287 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1933)