Sullivan v. United States
363 F.2d 724 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a corporation redeems stock that a remaining shareholder was personally and unconditionally obligated to purchase, the payment by the corporation is considered a constructive dividend to that shareholder for tax purposes because it discharges their personal obligation and confers an economic benefit upon them.
Facts:
- William J. Sullivan was the majority shareholder in an automobile dealership corporation.
- Sullivan entered into an agreement with Frank Nelson, the dealership's manager, which allowed Nelson to acquire stock in the corporation.
- The agreement stipulated that if Nelson terminated his employment, he agreed to sell, and Sullivan personally agreed to purchase, all of Nelson's shares at their book value.
- The contract stated Sullivan "agrees that he will, within thirty (30) days after such shares have been offered for sale to him, accept the offer to sell."
- In 1956, Nelson resigned and offered to sell his stock, which constituted about 38% of the outstanding shares, to Sullivan pursuant to their agreement.
- Instead of Sullivan purchasing the shares himself, the corporation's Board of Directors authorized the corporation to redeem Nelson's stock.
- The corporation paid Nelson $198,334.58 for his shares, leaving Sullivan as the sole shareholder.
Procedural Posture:
- The Internal Revenue Service assessed a tax deficiency against William J. Sullivan for the 1956 tax year.
- Sullivan paid the assessed tax and subsequently filed a timely claim for a refund, which was denied.
- Sullivan (taxpayer) sued the United States (government) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to recover the allegedly overpaid taxes.
- The District Court ruled in favor of the United States, holding that the corporation's payment was a constructive dividend to Sullivan.
- Sullivan, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of the District Court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 corporation's payment to redeem the stock of a departing shareholder constitute a taxable constructive dividend to the remaining sole shareholder when that shareholder had a pre-existing, unconditional personal obligation to purchase the stock?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephenson, District Judge
Yes, the corporation's redemption of Nelson's stock constitutes a taxable constructive dividend to Sullivan. The court found that the memorandum agreement between Sullivan and Nelson unambiguously created a primary and unconditional personal obligation on Sullivan's part to purchase Nelson's stock. When the corporation used its funds to buy the stock, it directly discharged this personal obligation, conferring a significant economic benefit upon Sullivan. The court rejected Sullivan's attempt to introduce parol evidence to reinterpret the clear terms of the contract, affirming that the government, even as a stranger to the contract, could invoke the parol evidence rule. The core of the decision rests on the 'economic benefit' test: because the corporate payment relieved Sullivan of a personal liability, it was equivalent to the corporation paying him a dividend, which he then used to satisfy his debt. The court found no bona fide corporate business purpose for the redemption that could override this conclusion, as the obligation to purchase was Sullivan's, not the corporation's.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that substance over form dictates tax consequences, particularly in the context of closely-held corporations. It establishes that a corporation's satisfaction of a shareholder's unconditional personal obligation will be treated as a constructive dividend, regardless of the transaction's form as a 'stock redemption.' The decision serves as a critical precedent for structuring buy-sell agreements, highlighting that if a shareholder is personally obligated to buy shares, having the corporation fund the purchase will likely trigger adverse tax consequences. To avoid this outcome, agreements should be structured as corporate redemption agreements or options from the outset, rather than cross-purchase obligations fulfilled by the corporation.
Unlock the full brief for Sullivan v. United States