Question

At a minimum your memorandum should include the following:

- One Internal Revenue Code Sections.

- Two court cases (one of the court cases must be a U.S. Court of Appeals case, i.e.,   

    circuit court case). You may use a circuit court case from any circuit since you are not

    being given residence information.

- One Revenue Ruling.

- One other primary authority (do not use another code section or case for this

    requirement).

TAXPAYER INFORMATION

One of your tax clients, Greta Mills, called you this morning with a tax issue. In an exchange qualifying for Section 351 tax-free treatment, Greta received 100 shares of the White Corporation’s stock, plus a right to receive another 25 shares. The right is contingent on the valuation of a patent contributed by Greta. Because the patent is pending, the patent cannot be valued for several months.

Greta would like you to explain what her tax consequences will be when she exercises her right and receives the 25 shares. Specifically, for purposes of Section 351, whether the 25 shares will be considered “boot” and thus taxable to her, or be considered additional nontaxable stock.  

Please research Greta’s question and prepare a Tax Research Memorandum detailing your results.

Answer 1

The memorandum should explain that, as long as the additional 25 shares to be received by Greta do not have any other rights attaching to them, they are considered to be stock for purposes of Sec. 351. Thus, Greta will not have to recognize any income when she receives her contingent shares.

Revenue Ruling 57-586, 1957-2 C.B. 249, addressed negotiable certificates issued to a shareholder in connection with a nontaxable reorganization representing a contingent interest in additional shares of the acquiring corporation’s stock that would be issued along with cash dividends if certain occurrences took place. The ruling held that the certificates were “other” property and fell under the boot rules.

Two later court cases and several revenue rulings have changed this position substantially. First, in June M. Carlberg v. U.S., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that certificates of contingent interest issued to the taxpayerstockholder in a corporate reorganization permitting her to obtain reserved shares, which were not to be issued pending the determination of liabilities of one of the merging corporations, were stock rather than other property.

In James C. Hamrick, 43 T.C. 21 (1964), the Tax Court held that a taxpayer’s contractual right to receive additional stock, contingent upon the earnings of the corporation exceeding a specified amount, is the equivalent of stock within the meaning of Sec. 351. The receipt of additional shares in later years pursuant to the original incorporation agreement was held not to result in the recognition of gain by the transferor.

The IRS held in Rev. Rul. 66-112, 1966-2 C.B. 68, that, because the contingent contractual rights were not specifically marketable and could give rise only to the receipt of additional stock by a transferor, both the stock and the control tests of Sec. 351 were satisfied. The IRS has acquiesced to the Hamrick decision (1966-2 C.B. 2). Revenue Ruling 66-112 also distinguished the facts at hand from those in Rev. Rul. 57-586.

Revenue Ruling 67-90, 1967-1 C.B. 79, provides that a contingent contractual right to receive only additional voting stock provided for in a plan of reorganization satisfies the “solely for voting stock” requirement for a Type B reorganization where the number of additional shares of stock to be issued is determined by a formula based upon the future market price of the shares of the acquiring corporation.

Revenue Procedure 77-37, 1977-2 C.B. 568, places certain restrictions on contingent stock that will be issued as part of a reorganization when a taxpayer is requesting a private letter ruling on the transaction. These restrictions do not apply to a Sec. 351 transaction. Revenue Procedure 83-59, 1983-2 C.B. 575, as modified by Rev. Proc. 2013-32, 2013-28 I.R.B. 55, requires a representation be made about contingent shares that are to be issued as part of a request for a private letter ruling on a Sec. 351 transaction, but it does not place any limit on the portion of the stock that can be considered to be contingent.