Arnes v. Commissioner
102 T.C. 522; 1994 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 22; 102 T.C. No. 20 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A corporate redemption of a departing shareholder's stock does not result in a constructive dividend to the remaining shareholder if the remaining shareholder's obligation to purchase the stock is secondary and contingent, not primary and unconditional.
Facts:
- John A. Arnes and his wife, Joann Arnes, were married in 1970 and jointly owned 5,000 shares of Moriah Valley Enterprises, Inc. (Moriah), the corporate entity for their McDonald's franchise.
- McDonald's corporate policy required 100% ownership of a franchise by the on-premises owner/operator and did not permit joint ownership by divorced spouses, viewing it as an unapproved partnership.
- The couple permanently separated in January 1987. In December 1987, their jointly held stock was reissued into two separate certificates of 2,500 shares for each spouse.
- John and Joann entered into a property settlement agreement as part of their divorce, which stipulated that their corporation, Moriah, was obligated to redeem all 2,500 of Joann's shares.
- The property settlement agreement also required John Arnes to personally guarantee Moriah's payment obligations to Joann.
- This property settlement agreement was incorporated into the final decree of dissolution of their marriage in January 1988.
Procedural Posture:
- Joann Arnes initially reported capital gain from the stock redemption on her 1988 tax return.
- Joann Arnes subsequently filed a claim for a refund, arguing the transaction was non-taxable to her under I.R.C. § 1041, and initiated a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Joann Arnes.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, holding the redemption was a transfer 'on behalf of' her ex-husband and thus non-taxable to her under § 1041.
- The Internal Revenue Service (respondent) issued a notice of deficiency to John A. Arnes (petitioner) for the 1988 and 1989 tax years, asserting the redemption constituted a constructive dividend to him.
- John Arnes filed a petition in the U.S. Tax Court to contest the asserted deficiency.
- Both John Arnes and the IRS filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the U.S. Tax Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a corporation's redemption of a former spouse's stock, as required by a divorce property settlement agreement, result in a constructive dividend to the remaining shareholder spouse when the remaining spouse personally guarantees the corporation's payment obligation?
Opinions:
Majority - Fay, Judge
No. A corporation's redemption of a former spouse's stock does not result in a constructive dividend to the remaining shareholder spouse because the remaining spouse's personal guarantee creates only a secondary and contingent obligation, not a primary and unconditional one. A constructive dividend arises only when a corporation discharges a shareholder's primary and unconditional obligation to purchase stock. Here, the property settlement agreement consistently and from its inception placed the primary obligation to redeem Joann's stock on the corporation, Moriah. John's role as a guarantor created merely a secondary liability, which would only materialize upon Moriah's default. This case is controlled by the precedent in Edler v. Commissioner, which established this distinction. The court declined to follow the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in the related case concerning Joann's tax liability (Arnes v. United States), finding that the issue in that case—the application of § 1041—was distinct from the constructive dividend issue here, and any statements about John's obligation were non-binding dictum.
Concurrence - Hamblen, C.J.
No. The author agrees with the majority opinion as well as the concurring opinions of Judge Chiechi and Judge Beghe, particularly regarding the historical and policy reasons for maintaining the pre-existing tax law on corporate redemptions.
Concurrence - Beghe, J.
No. The majority correctly decided the case and was not bound by the Golsen rule to follow the Ninth Circuit's decision in the wife's case. The Golsen rule is not absolute, and its application here is unwarranted because the Ninth Circuit panel in the prior case did not have the benefit of arguments regarding the controlling precedent of Edler v. Commissioner. Furthermore, § 1041 was enacted to overturn the rule in United States v. Davis and was not intended to implicitly repeal the entire body of common law governing corporate redemptions. Adhering to the established 'primary and unconditional obligation' test preserves a crucial bright-line rule, prevents tax game-playing by divorcing spouses, and avoids the unjust financial outcome that would result from taxing the husband on a transaction structured for the wife to bear the tax consequences.
Concurrence - Chiechi, J.
No. The Golsen rule, which directs the Tax Court to follow the precedent of the circuit court to which a case is appealable, does not apply here. The rule's purpose is to avoid futile decisions that are certain to be reversed. In this instance, the legal issue before the Ninth Circuit in the wife's case (application of § 1041) was not 'squarely on point' with the legal issue here (constructive dividend to the husband). Therefore, the outcome on appeal is not certain, and extending the Golsen principle is not warranted.
Dissenting - Ruwe, J.
Yes. The redemption should result in a constructive dividend because the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where this case is appealable, already resolved the determinative legal issue in the wife's related case. Under the Golsen rule, the Tax Court is bound by the Ninth Circuit's holding in Arnes v. United States that 'the obligation to purchase Joann’s stock was John’s, not Moriah’s.' That holding was central to the Ninth Circuit's decision and cannot be dismissed as dictum. The majority's decision directly contradicts a controlling appellate court and produces an untenable 'whipsaw' result where a $450,000 corporate distribution escapes taxation entirely.
Dissenting - Halpern, J.
Yes. The Ninth Circuit's holding that § 1041 applied to the wife's transfer logically requires a finding of a constructive dividend to the husband. For § 1041 to apply, the transaction must be treated as a transfer of shares from the wife to the husband, who then transfers them to the corporation. It is inconsistent to adopt this premise while simultaneously concluding the husband had no obligation to purchase the shares. The Ninth Circuit's decision in the wife's case effectively overruled its prior, pre-§ 1041 decision in Edler. Under Golsen, for the sake of judicial efficiency, the Tax Court should have followed the clear precedent from the controlling circuit.
Analysis:
This case highlights the significant conflict between established corporate tax principles regarding constructive dividends and the application of § 1041 for transfers incident to divorce. The Tax Court's decision reaffirms the 'primary and unconditional obligation' test, refusing to expand it based on the § 1041 'on behalf of' standard articulated by the Ninth Circuit in a related case. This created a 'whipsaw' situation where the government could lose tax revenue from both ex-spouses, emphasizing the need for consistent treatment or consolidation of related tax cases. The decision underscores the judiciary's reluctance to allow one section of the tax code (§ 1041) to implicitly overturn a long-standing, separate body of common law (constructive dividend rules) without explicit Congressional intent.
Unlock the full brief for Arnes v. Commissioner