Honbarrier v. Commissioner
115 T.C. 300; 2000 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 69; 115 T.C. No. 23 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a corporate merger to qualify as a tax-free reorganization under § 368, it must satisfy the continuity of business enterprise doctrine, which requires the acquiring corporation to either continue the target corporation's historic business or use a significant portion of the target's historic business assets in its own business.
Facts:
- Archie L. Honbarrier was the sole shareholder of Colonial Motor Freight Line, Inc. (Colonial), a trucking company that hauled packaged freight.
- In 1988, due to financial losses, Colonial ceased all freight-hauling operations.
- By the end of 1990, Colonial had sold all of its operating assets, such as tractors and trailers, for cash and cash equivalents.
- For the three years leading up to the transaction in question, Colonial's sole activity was investing the proceeds from its asset sales, primarily in tax-exempt bonds and a municipal bond fund.
- Honbarrier and his family also owned Central Transport, Inc. (Central), a successful and active trucking company that transported bulk chemicals.
- On December 31, 1993, Colonial merged into Central, and Honbarrier exchanged his Colonial stock for shares of Central stock.
- Immediately following the merger, Central distributed the cash and tax-exempt bonds it had acquired from Colonial to its shareholders, with the vast majority of these assets going to Honbarrier.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Respondent) determined income tax deficiencies against Archie L. and Louise B. Honbarrier for the 1993 tax year.
- The Commissioner also determined an income tax deficiency against Colonial Motor Freight Line, Inc. for the 1993 tax year.
- The Honbarriers and Central Transport, Inc. (as successor to Colonial) filed separate petitions in the United States Tax Court challenging the Commissioner's determinations.
- The Tax Court consolidated the two cases for trial, briefing, and opinion.
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 merger of a corporation that has ceased its historic operating business and exists solely as a passive investment vehicle into an active operating corporation qualify as a tax-free reorganization when the acquiring corporation does not continue the investment business or use the investment assets in its own operations?
Opinions:
Majority - Ruwe, J.
No. The merger fails to qualify as a tax-free reorganization because it does not satisfy the continuity of business enterprise requirement. The continuity of business enterprise (COBE) doctrine, established by judicial precedent and codified in Treasury Regulations, mandates that a transaction is tax-free only if the acquiring corporation either continues the acquired corporation's historic business or uses a significant portion of its historic business assets. Here, Colonial's 'historic business' at the time of the merger was not trucking, which it had abandoned five years prior, but rather the passive activity of holding investment assets like tax-exempt bonds. Central, an active trucking company, did not continue Colonial's investment business. Furthermore, Central did not use Colonial's 'historic business assets'—the bonds and cash—in its own business; instead, it immediately distributed them to shareholders as part of a pre-arranged plan. Because both prongs of the COBE test failed, the transaction is treated as a taxable liquidation and sale, not a tax-free reorganization.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial clarification of the continuity of business enterprise (COBE) doctrine, establishing that a company's 'historic business' is defined by its most recent activities, not its original purpose. The decision underscores that courts will look past the formal structure of a merger to its substantive economic reality. It serves as a significant precedent preventing taxpayers from using a statutory merger as a device to effectively liquidate a corporation's passive investment portfolio and distribute the assets to shareholders without incurring the tax consequences of a liquidation. The ruling reinforces that the reorganization provisions are intended for readjustments of continuing businesses, not for bailouts of inactive investment shells.
