TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ronald A. Anderson and Marilyn J. Anderson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Ronald A. ANDERSON and Marilyn J. Anderson, Petitioners-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee, Cross-Appellant

Anderson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 583 F.2d 953 (7th Cir. 1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 15, 1978
Docket
No. 77-2238
Judges
Bauer, Castle, Per Curiam, Tone
Citations
583 F.2d 95342 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 58761978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9005

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This taxpayer appeal presents two issues:

1. When § 422 * stock options given to employees of subsidiary corporations to acquire stock of the parent are exercised, is the difference between the fair market value of the stock and the purchase price a proper charge against the earnings and profits of the subsidiary corporation rather than of the issuing parent corporation?

2. In determining whether a § 301 ordinary corporate distribution constitutes a dividend under § 316(a)(2) and thus is included in the recipient’s gross income, § 301(c), are the earnings and profits of the distributing corporation to be determined as of the close of the fiscal year without diminution in the amount of a § 302(a) redemption distribution made during the year?

We answer both questions in the affirmative.

In a case presenting questions of such difficulty and so ably briefed and orally argued on both sides, we would ordinarily expect, and indeed be expected, to issue a published opinion. After studying the briefs and hearing the oral argument, how *954 ever, in this “recondite matter,” as counsel for the government aptly described it in oral argument, we find ourselves not only in agreement with, but unable to improve upon, the Tax Court’s analysis of the two issues presented. We therefore affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the Tax Court in its opinion ruling on these issues, reported at 67 T.C. 522, 543-570 (1977).

AFFIRMED.

* This and other references herein are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, U.S.C.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1981: 11982: 11984: 11985: 11987: 11990: 11993: 12012: 12013: 119812026peak 1981 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. CWT Farms, Inc. v. Commissioner79 T.C. No. 5
  2. Bhada v. Commissioner89 T.C. No. 67
  3. Juha v. Comm'r2012 T.C. Memo. 68
  4. Transamerica Corp. v. United States7 Cl. Ct. 119 (Ct. Cl. 1984)
  5. Welle v. Commissioner140 T.C. No. 19
  6. Texas Speed Distribs., Inc. v. Commissioner1993 T.C. Memo. 446

Most recent

  1. Welle v. Commissioner140 T.C. No. 19
  2. Juha v. Comm'r2012 T.C. Memo. 68
  3. Texas Speed Distribs., Inc. v. Commissioner1993 T.C. Memo. 446
  4. Estate of Deniro v. Comm'r1990 T.C. Memo. 398
  5. Bhada v. Commissioner89 T.C. No. 67
  6. Adair v. Commissioner1985 T.C. Memo. 392

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Anderson v. Comm'r, 67 T.C. 522 (Tax Ct. 1976) 17

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list