Lexplug logoLexplug

James v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court
53 T.C. 63; 1969 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 38 (1969)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Stock received in exchange for services rendered to a corporation, such as securing loan commitments and making other pre-incorporation arrangements, is considered taxable compensation and not a tax-free transfer of property under Internal Revenue Code § 351.


Facts:

  • William A. James, a real estate developer, entered into an agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Talbot to develop an apartment project.
  • The agreement stipulated that the Talbots would contribute land, and James would be responsible for planning, securing architectural work, and arranging financing for the project.
  • Upon the project's completion, they would form a corporation, with the voting stock to be split equally between James and the Talbots.
  • James successfully arranged for an architectural firm, a mortgage loan from United Mortgagee Service Corp., and a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) commitment to insure the loan.
  • Under FHA regulations, the loan insurance commitment could only be issued to a corporation, not an individual.
  • On November 5, 1963, Chicora Apartments, Inc. was formed.
  • The Talbots transferred their land to Chicora in exchange for 10 shares of stock.
  • On the same day, James received 10 shares of stock, purportedly in exchange for transferring the FHA commitment, the loan commitment, and other arrangements to the corporation.

Procedural Posture:

  • The petitioners (James and Talbot families) filed their 1963 joint federal income tax returns, treating their receipt of Chicora Apartments, Inc. stock as a non-taxable event under § 351.
  • The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent) issued a statutory notice of deficiency, determining that Mr. James had received taxable income because his stock was compensation for services.
  • The Commissioner also determined that the Talbots' exchange of land for stock resulted in a taxable capital gain because the § 351 control requirement was not met.
  • The petitioners challenged the Commissioner's determinations by filing petitions in the U.S. Tax Court.

Locked

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 person's work in obtaining a loan commitment and other arrangements for a future corporation constitute a transfer of 'property' in exchange for stock, making the transaction tax-free under Internal Revenue Code § 351?


Opinions:

Majority - Simpson, Judge

No. A person's work in obtaining a loan commitment and other arrangements for a corporation is considered the performance of services, not a transfer of property, and therefore the receipt of stock for such work is a taxable event not protected by § 351. The court reasoned that § 351(a) explicitly states that stock issued for services is not considered issued in return for property. While the products of services, like patents, can be property, James's contributions were different. He never personally acquired an ownership right in the FHA or loan commitments; they were always intended for the future corporation, Chicora. In fact, the FHA commitment could not legally be issued to him as an individual. Therefore, James performed services for the corporation, rather than transferring a pre-existing property right to the corporation. Because James did not transfer property, the actual property transferors (the Talbots) held only 50% of the stock, failing to meet the 80% control requirement for § 351 to apply to their transfer, making their exchange taxable as well.



Analysis:

This decision provides a crucial clarification of the distinction between 'property' and 'services' under § 351. It establishes that pre-incorporation promotional and organizational efforts, even if they create valuable intangible assets like financing commitments, do not convert into 'property' that can be contributed tax-free. The ruling reinforces that § 351 is meant to provide for tax-free changes in the form of an investment, not to allow founders to receive 'sweat equity' tax-free as compensation for their labor. This case serves as a significant precedent for structuring transactions involving service providers in corporate formations, highlighting the tax consequences of issuing stock for services rather than for tangible or clearly defined intangible property.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: James v. Commissioner (1969)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"