Glacier State Electric Supply Co. v. Commissioner
80 T.C. 1047, 1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 75, 80 T.C. No. 55 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A taxpayer cannot use the step transaction doctrine to retroactively recharacterize a transaction into a more tax-favorable form that did not actually occur, especially when the substance of the transaction aligns with the form originally chosen.
Facts:
- In 1946, Donald Rearden and J. Kenneth Parsons incorporated Glacier State Electric Supply Co. (Glacier State).
- In 1953, Glacier State, along with Rearden, Parsons, and Arthur Pyle, formed a subsidiary, Glacier State Electric Supply Co. of Billings (GSB), with Glacier State owning the majority of GSB's stock.
- In 1954, Rearden and Parsons entered into a buy-sell agreement with Glacier State requiring the corporation to redeem the shares of whichever founder died first.
- A subsequent agreement, amended in 1969, stipulated that upon the death of Parsons or Rearden, GSB would redeem one-half of the GSB stock owned by Glacier State.
- J. Kenneth Parsons died on April 10, 1976, triggering the obligations under the buy-sell agreements.
- On August 30, 1977, GSB redeemed 112 shares of its stock from its parent, Glacier State.
- Glacier State then assigned the payments it received from GSB (a promissory note and a check) to the Parsons estate.
- Contemporaneously, Glacier State used these assigned proceeds to redeem all of its own stock held by the Parsons estate.
Procedural Posture:
- Glacier State Electric Supply Co. (petitioner) filed its corporate income tax returns for 1976 and 1977.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent) reviewed the returns and determined tax deficiencies of $7,350.71 for 1976 and $38,943.17 for 1977.
- Glacier State filed a petition in the United States Tax Court, a court of first instance for federal tax disputes, to challenge the Commissioner's determination of deficiencies.
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 step transaction doctrine apply to recharacterize a transaction where a parent corporation's subsidiary redeems its own stock from the parent, and the parent uses the proceeds to redeem its own stock from a deceased shareholder's estate, as a direct distribution of the subsidiary's stock to the estate followed by a redemption from the estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Dawson, J.
No, the step transaction doctrine does not apply to recharacterize the transaction. A taxpayer, having chosen a particular form for a transaction, must accept the tax consequences of that choice and may not enjoy the benefits of a different route they might have chosen but did not. The court found that the substance of the transaction matched its form: Glacier State was the true owner of the GSB stock for over 20 years, it incurred a liability to redeem its own stock from the Parsons estate upon Parsons' death, and it satisfied that liability by selling one of its assets—the GSB stock. The taxpayer is not collapsing or reordering existing steps but is asking the court to invent a new series of events that did not take place, which stretches the step transaction doctrine too far. The court also rejected the petitioner's alternative argument that the redemption should be treated as a dividend, finding that it qualified as a substantially disproportionate redemption under Section 302(b)(2) and thus was properly treated as a capital gain.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that taxpayers are generally bound by the form of their transactions, a concept articulated in Commissioner v. National Alfalfa. It establishes a high burden for taxpayers seeking to use the substance-over-form or step transaction doctrines offensively to recharacterize their own deals for a better tax result. The decision makes clear that these doctrines are not tools for retroactively fixing poor tax planning, especially when the chosen form had economic substance and was not a mere sham. The ruling serves as a strong reminder for tax planners that the initial structure of a transaction is critical and cannot easily be disavowed later.
