Helvering Vs Gregory Case Study

Philip J. Cooper v. Charles Austin 837 S. W. 2d 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

Parent Corporation has owned 60% of Subsidiary Corporation’s single class of stock for a number of years. Tyrone owns the remaining 40% of the Subsidiary stock. On August 10, of the current year, Parent purchases Tyrone’s Subsidiary stock for cash. On September 15, Subsidiary adopts a plan of liquidation. Subsidiary then makes a single liquidating distribution on October 1. The

Overview of the Case: The Securities and Exchange Commission claims Mark D. Begelman misused proprietary information regarding the merger of Bluegreen Corporation with BFC Financial Corporation. Mr. Begelman allegedly learned of the acquisition through a network of professional connections known as the World Presidents’ Organization (Maglich). Members of this organization freely share non-public business information with other members in confidence; however, Mr. Begelman allegedly did not abide by the organization’s mandate of secrecy and leveraged private information into a lucrative security transaction. As stated in the summary of the case by the SEC, “Mark D. Begelman, a member of the World Presidents’ Organization (“WPO”), abused

The appellants view the “substance” of the transaction is over the “form”. Generally, taxpayers are bound by the form of their transaction and may not argue the substance triggers different tax consequences. The Tax Court found the form and substance of the transaction was a loan from the bank to VAFLA and not to the appellants. The proceeds were to be used in the operation of the business and petitioners were not free to dispose the loan. Nor were the payments reported as constructive dividends.

To meet the control test under section 351, a taxpayer transferring property to a corporation must by himself own 80 percent or more of the corporation 's voting stock and 80 percent of each class of nonvoting stock after the transfer even if there are

Case 2 is an appeal against the sentence imposed by Judge C. F. Wall on appellant

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

b. Ken sold 1,000 shares of stock for $32 a share. He inherited the stock two years ago. His tax basis (or investment) in the

1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

Reasoning- The Supreme Court’s decision was split and provided various points of view on the issues just like the American population and some sections are still being challenged today. Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan to form the opinion of the court on this case. However, there are sections where Justices felt split on the opinion. Due to this reason, there is a detailed explanation of which

The primary viewpoint of the Charter was the dominance of the rights and the fairness of the judicial system. Two related Charter rights complimented this case: the right to counsel under s. 10(b) and the right against self-incrimination under s. 11(c). In addition, as mentioned earlier, the right remain silent was an issue. Majority found that these rights granted Hebert right to be free of coercion by the police, but also the right to choose whether or not to give a statement.

Chris and Sue are 50 percent shareholders in BackBone personal service corporation. Backbone provides chiropractic services in four separate offices, in four small towns: Troy, Union, Vista and Willow. Chris is the main chiropractor in the Troy office, and Sue heads up the Vista office. Charlie, the main chiropractor in the Willow office, does not see eye-to-eye with Chris and Sue on management styles. Charlie is highly competent and well-liked by patients and therefore indispensable in the eyes of Chris and Sue. Chris and Sue may be willing to give Charlie control of the Willow office, but do not want to lose the profits this office adds to BackBone. A corporate reorganization seems to be a good alternative.

There are situations where once the 351(a) factors are met, a transferor will transfer stock received to someone outside of the control group, and then the requirement after might not be met. A transferor might distribute some of the control received to the shareholders after the requirement based on 351(c). This type of distribution can be taxable to both the shareholders and the distributing