1. Respondent, after examining Pasadena's books and records for the years 1954-56, proposed certain adjustments. These adjustments were subsequently settled under administrative procedures. Thereafter, without giving proper written notice pursuant to
2. Petitioner acquired by purchase over 80 percent of the stock of Pasadena. Within 2 years after the purchase Pasadena adopted a plan of liquidation. Pasadena, subsequent to the adoption of said plan, sold some assets at a loss of $ 248,634.51 and other assets at a gain of $ 852,312.35. Pasadena, within 12 months after the adoption of its plan to liquidate, 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*77 did, in fact, liquidate.
44 T.C. 323">*323 OPINION
The Commissioner determined deficiencies in income tax for the taxable years 1954 and 1956 against Pasadena First National Bank, a transferor corporation, in the respective amounts of $ 22,983.70 and $ 295,430.78. This proceeding involves the liability of the petitioner as transferee of the assets of the aforementioned transferor 44 T.C. 323">*324 corporation. 1 The parties by agreement have disposed of certain issues raised by the pleadings. The first issue for decision is whether the proposed deficiencies are improper, illegal, and invalid because of the Commissioner's alleged violation of
All of the facts have been stipulated, are so found, and the stipulation of facts, together with the exhibits attached thereto, is incorporated herein by this reference. Those necessary to an understanding of the issues presented are recited below.
United States Holding Co. (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal office and place of business in San Diego, Calif. Petitioner is the transferee of assets of Pasadena First National Bank. Petitioner filed its Federal income 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*79 tax returns for the years 1954 and 1956 with the district director of internal revenue at Los Angeles, Calif.
Pasadena First National Bank, transferor (hereinafter referred to as Pasadena), was a national bank organized under the laws of the United States with its principal offices located in Pasadena, Calif.
Pasadena timely filed its Federal income tax returns on the cash basis for the year 1954 and on an accrual basis for the year 1956 with the district director of internal revenue at Los Angeles, Calif., and the taxes shown to be due on such returns were paid at the time of filing.
The Commissioner examined the books and records of Pasadena for the years 1954, 1955, and 1956, and the findings of said examination were set out in a revenue agent's report dated August 22, 1957.
The adjustments proposed in the revenue agent's report of August 22, 1957, were settled by administrative procedure.
Prior to 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*80 July 18, 1960, the Commissioner, without properly notifying petitioner in writing that an additional inspection was necessary, requested the books and records of Pasadena for the purpose of reexamination. The petitioner refused to make the books and records available to the agents of the Commissioner.
On July 18, 1960, a letter of necessity of reexamination of Pasadena was served upon M. N. Wilson, president of United States National 44 T.C. 323">*325 Bank of San Diego and the purchaser of the assets of Pasadena. The letter stated:
July 14, 1960
Pasadena First National Bank
Pasadena, California
Gentlemen:
While it is the policy of the Internal Revenue Service to make as few inspections of books of account and records of taxpayers as possible, it is deemed necessary before finally closing your income tax case, to make a reinvestigation of your books and records for the years 1954 and 1956 in order to properly verify your returns for those years. A reexamination, therefore, will be made.
Your cooperation in permitting our representatives access to all of your books and records will be appreciated. I trust this will not cause you any inconvenience.
This notice is sent in compliance with
Very 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*81 truly yours,
(S) Harold Hawkins
Wilson was not, on the date said notice was served nor at any time, an officer, director, or shareholder of Pasadena or the petitioner, nor was he authorized by Pasadena, or its liquidating agent, to accept service of process or any other official notification, or in any other manner act on behalf of, or as an agent for, Pasadena, its liquidating agent, or petitioner.
Subsequent to service of the notification on July 18, 1960, the agents of the Commissioner, though requested by petitioner, failed or refused to issue or have issued legal process requiring the production of the books and records of Pasadena.
The Commissioner was denied access to the books and records of Pasadena, at no time were such books and records made available to the Commissioner for reexamination, and at no time has the Commissioner made a reexamination of such books and records.
Petitioner subsequently made certain books and records available to respondent's counsel for the limited purpose of reaching agreement for the stipulation of facts. It is agreed that petitioner did not thereby waive any right to contend that the deficiency proposed by the Commissioner 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*82 is illegal, invalid, and void because of the Commissioner's failure to comply with the provisions of
During the period not more than 12 months immediately preceding November 19, 1956, petitioner acquired by purchase the stock of Pasadena, representing in excess of 80 percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote and in excess of 80 percent of the total number of shares of all classes of stock. At all times pertinent hereto, petitioner was the owner of Pasadena stock as set out above.
44 T.C. 323">*326 Pasadena entered into a purchase and sale agreement dated October 31, 1956, with the United States National Bank of San Diego (hereinafter referred to as San Diego) whereby San Diego agreed to purchase all assets of Pasadena on hand as of the close of business of Pasadena on December 7, 1956, and to assume the liabilities of the seller under the terms and conditions as set forth in the agreement.
At a special meeting of the shareholders of Pasadena held November 19, 1956, the following resolution was adopted:
Resolved, That Pasadena-First National Bank, Pasadena, California, be placed in voluntary liquidation, under the provisions of sections 5220 and 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*83 5221 of the United States Revised Statutes (
On October 15, 1956, and November 15, 1956, prior to the resolution to dissolve, Pasadena sold certain securities, as such term is defined by section 582(c), at a total loss of $ 107,840.14.
On November 30, 1956, December 3 and 5,
At the close of business on December 7, 1956, all of the remaining assets of Pasadena were sold to, and its liabilities were assumed by, San Diego in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement of October 31, 1956.
Most of the losses in issue herein, sustained on the sale of securities by Pasadena, were sustained as a result of a declining market between March 1956, the date of the purchase of stock by petitioner, and the dates on which such securities were sold.
On March 13, 1957, subsequent to the 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*84 sale of assets and in accordance with the agreement of October 31, 1956, all of the assets of Pasadena (cash of $ 1,770,643.20) were distributed to petitioner in complete liquidation.
Regarding the first issue, petitioner argues that the failure of the respondent to comply with the written-notice requirement of
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that since he did not reexamine the books and records of Pasadena, the written notice provided for in
We agree with respondent.
44 T.C. 323">*327
(b) Restrictions on Examination of Taxpayer. -- No taxpayer shall be subjected to unnecessary examination or investigations, and only one inspection of a taxpayer's books of account shall be made for each taxable year unless 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*85 the taxpayer requests otherwise or unless the Secretary or his delegate, after investigation, notifies the taxpayer in writing that an additional inspection is necessary.
The section contains two prohibitions. The first pertains to the prohibition against "unnecessary examination or investigations." The second prohibition pertains to the reexamination of the taxpayer's books and records without giving prior written notice thereof. It is this latter prohibition that petitioner claims respondent has violated, 3 thereby rendering his notice of deficiency totally invalid. We need not here decide whether the failure of respondent to file prior written notice of his intent to reexamine the books of a taxpayer would render a deficiency notice invalid, 41965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*86 for we find that respondent has not in any way violated
The prohibition which respondent allegedly violated by its express terms applies only to the books and records of the taxpayer.
In his opening statement to this Court, petitioner's counsel asserted that respondent did, in fact, reexamine Pasadena's books and records while they were in the hands of third parties. Petitioner, through counsel, further asserted that the third party records from which respondent allegedly obtained his information were, in fact, the books and records of Pasadena. Whether this is true or not cannot be determined from the facts before this Court. The blanket assertions of counsel in an opening statement do not constitute evidence before this Court, nor do they in any way diminish the effect 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*87 of the stipulated facts.
We next approach petitioner's alternative position on this first issue. Petitioner, now recognizing that respondent did not reexamine its books or the books of Pasadena, contends that any deficiency notice issued by respondent must be arbitrary and erroneous, thereby placing the burden of proof as to the correct tax liability on respondent. Actually, what petitioner is really contending is that pretrial concession of certain issues by respondent is tantamount to an admission that his notice of deficiency was arbitrary. With this we cannot agree. We have stated numerous times that the concession of an issue or issues by respondent prior to or at trial does not destroy the presumptive correctness of his notice of deficiency as to the remaining issues.
The remaining issue for decision involves the determination of whether Pasadena recognized a loss on its sale of securities after the adoption of a plan to liquidate.
Petitioner argues that where a subsidiary corporation liquidates under section 332 61965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*90 and where the basis of the assets in the hands of 44 T.C. 323">*329 the parent corporation is determined under section 334(b)(2), 71965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*91 then
Respondent, on the other hand, acknowledges that a loss may be recognized where
44 T.C. 323">*330 We agree with petitioner.
Both parties agree that the crux of this 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*93 case hinges upon the interpretation of
In
The purpose of the section was not to eliminate one level of taxation. This could be done without the aid of
See also
Accordingly,
If
To prevent the nonrecognition 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*95 of gain at both the corporate level and the shareholder level,
By the express terms of
This brings us to the question at issue, the interpretation of
Section 334(b) (2) was enacted to incorporate into law the principle of the
44 T.C. 323">*332 Since the purpose of
shall apply only to that portion (if any) of the gain which is not greater than the excess of (i) that portion of the adjusted basis * * * of the stock of the liquidating corporation which is allocable * * * to the property sold * * * over (ii) the adjusted basis, in the hands of the liquidating corporation, of the property sold * * *
Accordingly, it was the purpose of
Our next inquiry is, what would be the tax consequences to a subsidiary which sells its assets for less than their adjusted basis? We are of the opinion that the realized 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*99 loss to the subsidiary would be recognized by it, as
However, this is not the end of our inquiry. Respondent, acknowledging that a loss can be recognized, argues that in computing the loss, all the sales of assets by the subsidiary should be aggregated and if the net result is a loss, then, and only then, is there a recognizable loss. We do not agree with respondent.
Pasadena sold some securities after the adoption of its plan of liquidation for a loss of $ 248,634.51. Also after the adoption of the plan to liquidate, Pasadena sold other assets for a gain of $ 852,312.35. Respondent would have us net the two transactions together and, since they would result in a "net gain," he would have 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*100 us find that there is no loss to be recognized. We believe this approach would frustrate the purpose of the section as we have set forth above and, furthermore, 44 T.C. 323">*333 this approach is inconsistent with the interpretation placed upon other sections of the Code which are, in our opinion, analogous to the section here involved.
There are numerous sections of the Internal Revenue Code which by their express terms apply only to either specific transactions giving rise to a loss (secs. 267, 356(c), 373, 1242, 1243, 1244) or specific transactions giving rise to a gain (secs. 333, 1237(b), 1239, 1245, 1246, 1248, 1249, and 1250). For example, section 267 provides, in substance, that "no deduction shall be allowed" for losses arising from the sale of property between related parties. We have had several occasions to interpret that section with regard to the question we are confronted with here. That is, what happens if a taxpayer sells property on two different occasions to a related party, where one transaction results in a gain and the other in a loss? In each case the result is the same -- the loss is not deductible and the gain must be included in full.
In
If, in forbidding deduction of such losses, Congress had intended to refer to "net losses," it was easy to say so. n1 The application of the "so easy to say so rule" is pertinent here, since Congress elsewhere in the same Act used the "net loss" locution: * * * [Footnote omitted.]
See also
In
(c) Loss. -- If -- (1) section 354 would apply to an exchange, or section 355 would apply to an exchange or distribution, but for the fact that 44 T.C. 323">*334 (2) the property received in the exchange or distribution consists not only of property permitted by section 354 or 355 to be received without the recognition of gain or loss, but also of other property or money,
then no loss from the exchange or distribution shall be recognized.
The circuit court quoting extensively from
Gain or loss must be computed separately on each share of stock owned * * *. The limited recognition and special treatment accorded by section 333 applies only to the gain on such shares of stock upon which gain was realized and not to net gain computed by setting off losses realized on some shares against gain on others. * * * 10
We are of the opinion that the merging of the two sales here involved so as to eliminate the recognition of any loss by Pasadena would be contrary to the principles set forth above. It seems apparent to us that where Congress wanted a net result it so stated in clear, concise, and unambiguous language. We are unable to find nor have we been referred to a single case or a single section of the Code which requires the application of a "net" concept in the absence of clear language to do so. We will not do so in this case. To force the sales in this case to be merged for purposes of determining 1965 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*104 the net gain or loss will have the added effect of defeating the purpose of
Respondent maintains that to permit Pasadena to compute gain and loss separately on each sale, recognizing the losses but not the gains, would confer an unintended double benefit. Tax consequences could then be manipulated simply by disposing of loss-producing assets in one sale, obtaining complete recognition of losses, and disposing of gain-producing assets in a separate sale, thereby avoiding recognition of gain up to the limit provided by
Accordingly, we hold that Pasadena suffered a recognized loss of $ 248,634.51 on the sale of certain securities during the year 1956, which loss is treated as an ordinary loss by virtue of section 582(c).
1. Petitioner concedes that if it is determined that the transferor corporation is liable for the deficiencies in income tax for the years here involved, petitioner is liable as transferee.↩
2. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.↩
3. Petitioner does not contend that the reexamination conducted by respondent was "unnecessary." See
4. Compare
5. It is noted that as part of the stipulation of facts, petitioner conceded certain adjustments made by respondent.↩
6. SEC. 332. COMPLETE LIQUIDATIONS OF SUBSIDIARIES.
(a) General Rule. -- No gain or loss shall be recognized on the receipt by a corporation of property distributed in complete liquidation of another corporation.
(b) Liquidations to Which Section Applies. -- For purposes of subsection (a), a distribution shall be considered to be in complete liquidation only if -- (1) the corporation receiving such property was, on the date of the adoption of the plan of liquidation, and has continued to be at all times until the receipt of the property, the owner of stock (in such other corporation) possessing at least 80 percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote and the owner of at at least 80 percent of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock (except nonvoting stock which is limited and preferred as to dividends); and either (2) the distribution is by such other corporation in complete cancellation or redemption of all its stock, and the transfer of all the property occurs within the taxable year; in such case the adoption by the shareholders of the resolution under which is authorized the distribution of all the assets of such corporation in complete cancellation or redemption of all its stock shall be considered an adoption of a plan of liquidation, even though no time for the completion of the transfer of the property is specified in such resolution; or
7. SEC. 334. BASIS OF PROPERTY RECEIVED IN LIQUIDATIONS.
(b) Liquidation of Subsidiary. --
* * * * (2) Exception. -- If property is received by a corporation in a distribution in complete liquidation of another corporation (within the meaning of section 332(b)), and if -- (A) the distribution is pursuant to a plan of liquidation adopted -- (i) on or after June 22, 1954, and (ii) not more than 2 years after the date of the transaction described in subparagraph (B) (or, in the case of a series of transactions, the date of the last such transaction); and (B) stock of the distributing corporation possessing at least 80 percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote, and at least 80 percent of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock (except nonvoting stock which is limited and preferred as to dividends), was acquired by the distributee by purchase (as defined in paragraph (3)) during a period of not more than 12 months, then the basis of the property in the hands of the distributee shall be the adjusted basis of the stock with respect to which the distribution was made. For purposes of the preceding sentence, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, proper adjustment in the adjusted basis of any stock shall be made for any distribution made to the distributee with respect to such stock before the adoption of the plan of liquidation, for any money received, for any liabilities assumed or subject to which the property was received, and for other items.↩
8.
(c) Limitations. --
* * * *
(2) Liquidations to which section 332 applies. -- In the case of a sale or exchange following the adoption of a plan of complete liquidation, if section 332 applies with respect to such liquidation, then --
* * * * (B) if the basis of the property of the liquidating corporation in the hands of the distributee is determined under section 334(b) (2), this section shall apply only to that portion (if any) of the gain which is not greater than the excess of (i) that portion of the adjusted basis (adjusted for any adjustment required under the second sentence of section 334(b)(2)) of the stock of the liquidating corporation which is allocable, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, to the property sold or exchanged, over (ii) the adjusted basis, in the hands of the liquidating corporation, of the property sold or exchanged.
9. For an additional discussion of
10. See