Estate of Frank D. Stranahan, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
472 F.2d 867 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A taxpayer who assigns future income for valuable consideration in a bona fide commercial transaction realizes taxable ordinary income in the year of receipt of the consideration, not in the year the income is paid to the assignee.
Facts:
- On March 11, 1964, Frank D. Stranahan entered into an agreement with the IRS acknowledging a tax liability of $754,815.72 for interest, which he paid during the 1964 tax year.
- To ensure he had enough income in 1964 to fully utilize the large interest deduction, Stranahan sought to accelerate his future income.
- On December 22, 1964, Stranahan executed an agreement assigning the right to $122,820 in future dividends from his Champion Spark Plug Company stock to his son, Duane Stranahan.
- In exchange for the assignment, Duane paid his father $115,000 by check on the same day.
- Stranahan reported the $115,000 payment as ordinary income on his 1964 tax return.
- During 1965, Champion paid dividends totaling $40,050 directly to Duane Stranahan.
- Stranahan's estate did not report any part of the $40,050 received by the son as income for the 1965 tax year.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue sent a notice of deficiency to Frank D. Stranahan's estate (appellant), asserting that the $40,050 in dividends paid to the son in 1965 was taxable income to the decedent's estate.
- The estate petitioned the United States Tax Court, a court of first instance, for a re-determination of the deficiency.
- The Tax Court upheld the deficiency, holding that the transaction was a disguised loan that lacked a business purpose.
- The estate (appellant) appealed the Tax Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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 taxpayer who, for valid consideration, assigns his right to future dividend income to another party realize taxable income in the year the dividends are paid to the assignee, rather than in the year he received the consideration for the assignment?
Opinions:
Majority - Peck, Circuit Judge
No. A taxpayer who enters into a bona fide commercial transaction to assign future income for consideration realizes income in the year of receipt. The court reasoned that the transaction between Stranahan and his son was not a loan, but an economically realistic sale of a property right for valuable consideration. Although the sole motive was tax avoidance, a taxpayer is free to arrange his affairs to minimize tax liability, and a tax avoidance motive does not nullify an otherwise bona fide transaction. This case is distinguished from gratuitous assignment-of-income cases like Helvering v. Horst because here, Stranahan received good and sufficient consideration. The son assumed the risks of ownership, however remote, because his return on investment was dependent solely on the corporation's payment of dividends. Therefore, the income was properly recognized by the decedent in 1964 upon receipt of the $115,000.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between a prohibited gratuitous assignment of income and a permissible, taxable sale of a right to future income. It affirms the principle from Gregory v. Helvering that a transaction with a tax-avoidance motive will be respected for tax purposes as long as it has economic substance. The case provides a clear precedent for taxpayers wishing to accelerate income to take advantage of deductions or losses in a particular year, provided the transaction is a bona fide sale for consideration and not a disguised loan or sham. This holding limits the application of the 'fruit and tree' metaphor from Lucas v. Earl to situations involving gratuitous transfers, not bona fide sales.
