C-Lec Plastics, Inc. v. Commissioner
76 T.C. 601, 1981 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 144 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A transaction's substance, rather than its form, determines its tax treatment. A purported sale of property by a controlling shareholder to their corporation that is substantively an integrated exchange for stock will be treated as a tax-free transfer under IRC § 351, resulting in the corporation taking a carryover basis in the property under § 362.
Facts:
- Edward D. Walsh was the president and sole shareholder of C-Lec Plastics, Inc.
- Prior to May 1970, C-Lec Plastics created a set of plastic molds and fully deducted their creation costs, giving the molds a tax basis of zero.
- Around February 1972, C-Lec Plastics abandoned the molds, and Walsh took personal possession and ownership of them; Walsh's basis in the molds remained zero.
- As of May 1973, C-Lec Plastics was in a poor financial position and owed Walsh over $53,000, which was recorded in a corporate loan account.
- In early 1973, a new business opportunity arose that made it advantageous for C-Lec Plastics to reacquire the molds from Walsh.
- On June 1, 1973, Walsh transferred the molds, valued at $37,017.77, back to C-Lec Plastics.
- In return, C-Lec Plastics issued 500 shares of its common stock (valued at $40,000) to Walsh and reduced its outstanding loan to him by $2,982.23.
- On December 1, 1973, the reacquired molds were destroyed in a fire.
Procedural Posture:
- C-Lec Plastics, Inc. filed its corporate income tax return for the year ending May 31, 1974, claiming a casualty loss deduction of $37,017.77 for the destruction of the molds.
- The Internal Revenue Service (respondent) disallowed the deduction, determining that C-Lec Plastics' adjusted basis in the molds was zero.
- The IRS issued a statutory notice of deficiency for $14,717.25 to C-Lec Plastics.
- C-Lec Plastics (petitioner) challenged the deficiency by filing a petition in the United States 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 transaction where a sole shareholder transfers property to his corporation, recorded as an exchange for stock in corporate minutes and book entries, qualify as a tax-free exchange under Internal Revenue Code § 351, thereby requiring the corporation to take the shareholder's zero basis in the property under § 362, even if the corporation characterizes the transaction as a separate purchase and stock issuance?
Opinions:
Majority - Drennen, Judge
Yes. The transaction qualifies as a tax-free exchange under § 351, requiring the corporation to take the shareholder's zero basis in the property. The substance of a transaction, not its form, controls its tax consequences. Petitioner argued that two separate transactions occurred: a stock issuance for a reduction in debt and a separate credit purchase of the molds. However, the court found this characterization unpersuasive. The corporate minutes and accounting entries, which the court considered the best evidence of intent, explicitly documented a single, integrated transaction where stock was issued for the molds and a small debt reduction. Even if viewed as two steps, they were components of a single plan driven by the corporation's need to reacquire the molds. Because Walsh transferred property to a corporation he controlled solely in exchange for stock, the transaction falls under § 351. Consequently, under § 362, the corporation's basis in the molds is the same as the transferor's (Walsh's) basis, which was zero. A casualty loss deduction under § 165 is limited to the taxpayer's adjusted basis, so the corporation is not entitled to any deduction for the destroyed molds.
Analysis:
This case is a classic application of the substance-over-form doctrine, which is a foundational principle in tax law. The decision demonstrates that courts will scrutinize transactions between closely held corporations and their controlling shareholders to prevent tax avoidance. It establishes that taxpayers cannot simply use labels or structure transactions in a series of artificial steps to achieve a desired tax outcome, such as obtaining a stepped-up cost basis to create depreciation or loss deductions. The ruling reinforces the mandatory nature of IRC § 351 and the corresponding carryover basis rule of § 362, ensuring that property transfers from a controlling shareholder to a corporation do not artificially generate a higher tax basis for the corporate entity.
