Coady v. Commissioner
1960 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 217, 33 T.C. 771 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The division of a single, actively conducted trade or business into two separate, active corporations can qualify for non-recognition of gain under Section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code, provided all other statutory requirements are met.
Facts:
- For more than five years prior to 1954, Christopher Construction Co., an Ohio corporation, was actively engaged in the construction business.
- The company's stock was owned by M. Christopher and Edmund P. Coady, who by April 1954 each owned 50 percent.
- Due to disagreements, Christopher and Coady entered into an agreement to divide the company.
- On November 15, 1954, Christopher Construction Co. formed a new corporation, E. P. Coady and Co.
- Christopher Construction then transferred approximately half its assets—including a construction contract, equipment, and cash—to the new Coady company in exchange for all of the Coady company's stock.
- Immediately thereafter, Christopher Construction distributed all of the E. P. Coady and Co. stock to Edmund Coady in exchange for all of his stock in Christopher Construction.
- Following the transaction, both Christopher Construction Co. and E. P. Coady and Co. continued to be actively engaged in the construction business.
- The parties stipulated that prior to the transaction, Christopher Construction Co. was engaged in a 'single business'.
Procedural Posture:
- Edmund P. Coady and his wife filed their 1954 joint federal income tax return, reporting no gain or loss on the exchange of Christopher Company stock for E. P. Coady and Co. stock.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Respondent) determined an income tax deficiency, finding that Coady realized a taxable capital gain of $67,500 from the transaction.
- Coady (Petitioner) filed a petition with the Tax Court of the United States to challenge the Commissioner's determination of deficiency.
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 the division of a single, actively conducted trade or business into two separate corporations, followed by the distribution of the new corporation's stock to a shareholder in exchange for their original stock, qualify for non-recognition of gain under Section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Tietjens
Yes, the division of a single business can qualify for non-recognition of gain under Section 355. A careful reading of the statute reveals no language, either express or implied, that denies tax-free treatment to the division of a single trade or business. The statute requires that the trade or business that was divided must have been actively conducted for five years and that both the distributing and controlled corporations are actively engaged in a trade or business immediately after the distribution. The plurality requirement in § 355(b)(1) refers to the corporate entities post-distribution, not the number of businesses pre-distribution. The legislative history focuses on preventing the tax-free separation of active and inactive assets, not on mandating two pre-existing businesses. Therefore, the Treasury Regulation (§ 1.355-1) imposing a requirement of two pre-existing businesses is an invalid interpretation of the statute.
Dissenting - Judge Harron
No, the transaction should not qualify for tax-free treatment. The statute requires that both the distributing and controlled corporations conduct a business that has been actively conducted for five years. This means each resulting business must have its own distinct five-year history. Here, the Coady corporation's business, centered on a contract from June 1954, was a new venture and had not been conducted for the requisite five-year period. The Senate Finance Committee report's statement that 'both the business retained...and the business of the corporation...must have been actively conducted for the 5 years' supports the view that two pre-existing businesses were intended by Congress. The majority's narrow reading fails to consider the overall intendment of the statute.
Dissenting - Judge Atkins
No, the transaction should not qualify because the regulation prohibiting the division of a single business is valid. Section 355 is ambiguous, and under principles of judicial deference, Treasury regulations should be sustained unless they are unreasonable and plainly inconsistent with the statute. The regulation's interpretation is a reasonable one, supported by legislative history which suggests Congress contemplated the separation of distinct businesses. Given the ambiguity, the court should not overrule the contemporaneous construction by the agency charged with the statute's administration.
Analysis:
This landmark case invalidated a key Treasury regulation and significantly broadened the scope of tax-free corporate divisions under Section 355. By rejecting the IRS's position that Section 355 applied only to the separation of two or more distinct, pre-existing businesses, the court opened the door for vertical and horizontal divisions of a single integrated business. This decision shifted the legal analysis from the number of businesses before the division to the active status of the resulting businesses after the division. The ruling forced the IRS to abandon its restrictive 'two-business' rule, profoundly impacting corporate reorganization and planning, particularly for resolving shareholder disputes or separating different business functions.
