Helvering v. Elkhorn Coal Co.
95 F.2d 732 (1937)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A series of transactions that are part of a single, prearranged plan will be treated as a single transaction for tax purposes under the step transaction doctrine. A transaction structured to meet the literal definition of a tax-free reorganization will be disregarded if it lacks a legitimate business purpose and is merely a device to avoid taxation.
Facts:
- Elkhorn Coal & Coke Company ('old company') and Mill Creek Coal & Coke Company were associated coal mining corporations with overlapping directorates.
- A plan was devised for the old company to transfer its Maybeury mining properties to Mill Creek in exchange for 1,000 shares of Mill Creek stock.
- To qualify this transfer as a tax-free reorganization involving 'substantially all' assets, the old company's officers first organized a new corporation, Elkhorn Coal Company ('new company').
- On December 18, 1925, the old company transferred all of its assets, except for the Maybeury properties destined for Mill Creek, to the new company in exchange for the new company's stock.
- The old company immediately distributed the new company's stock to its own shareholders as a dividend.
- This left the old company holding only the Maybeury properties.
- On December 31, 1925, the old company transferred these remaining assets to Mill Creek in exchange for the Mill Creek stock.
- Subsequently, the new company acquired all the stock of the old company, the old company transferred the Mill Creek stock to the new company, and the old company was dissolved.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a tax deficiency against Elkhorn Coal & Coke Company for profit realized on the transfer of mining properties.
- Elkhorn Coal & Coke Company petitioned the Board of Tax Appeals (the court of first instance for tax matters) to contest the deficiency.
- The Board of Tax Appeals found in favor of the taxpayer, Elkhorn Coal & Coke Company, holding that the transfer was part of a tax-free reorganization.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, as petitioner, sought review of the Board of Tax Appeals' decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Elkhorn Coal & Coke Company is the respondent.
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 transfer of some of a corporation's assets to another company in exchange for stock qualify as a tax-free reorganization of 'substantially all' properties under the Revenue Act of 1926, when the transferring corporation first spun off its unwanted assets into a new entity as part of an integrated plan solely to meet the statutory requirement?
Opinions:
Majority - Parker, J.
No. A transaction structured as a corporate reorganization will not receive tax-free treatment if it is, in substance, a preconceived plan to carry out a taxable sale of assets. The court must look to the substance of the transaction, not its form. The creation of the new company and the transfer of assets to it served no business purpose other than to strip the old company of assets in anticipation of the transfer to Mill Creek. This was a 'mere device' intended to give the transfer the appearance of a transfer of 'substantially all' assets. Citing the precedent in Gregory v. Helvering, the court concluded that a series of steps that are part of a single plan must be viewed as one transaction. The entire undertaking was an 'elaborate and devious form of conveyance masquerading as a corporate reorganization' and thus the profit from the transfer to Mill Creek is taxable.
Dissenting - Watkins, D.J.
Yes. The transfer qualifies as a tax-free reorganization because the transactions had a legitimate business purpose and were not a sham. Unlike the ephemeral corporation created in Gregory v. Helvering, the new Elkhorn Coal Company was a legitimate, ongoing business enterprise formed to continue mining operations. The overall plan was motivated by a genuine business purpose: the economical consolidation of the Maybeury mining properties. The statute was intended to permit such tax-deferred reorganizations. Since the new company was a valid, functioning corporation and the reorganization had a clear business-related goal, the form of the transaction should be respected.
Analysis:
This decision is a cornerstone case for the application of the 'step transaction doctrine' and the 'business purpose' test in tax law. It reinforces the principle from Gregory v. Helvering that courts will look beyond the literal compliance with statutory language to the underlying substance and purpose of a transaction. By collapsing the pre-transfer spinoff and the subsequent asset transfer into a single event, the court prevented the taxpayer from exalting 'artifice above reality'. This case significantly limits the ability of corporations to use intermediary, formalistic steps that lack independent business purpose to achieve favorable tax treatment for what is essentially a partial asset sale.
Unlock the full brief for Helvering v. Elkhorn Coal Co.