1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*84
Two unrelated families each owned 50 percent of the fair market value of corporations X, Y, and Z. Pursuant to the tax-free reorganization, corporations Y and Z were merged into corporation X, which had a substantial premerger loss carryover. The shareholders of corporation X received (as a result of owning stock in corporation X) 10 percent of the fair market value of the stock of the survivor corporation.
68 T.C. 517">*518 Respondent has determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax for the taxable years 1968 to 1970, inclusive, in the amounts of $ 111,995.87, $ 84,692.83, and $ 389.20, respectively. Certain issues having been settled, the sole issue for decision is whether the petitioner's post-reorganization net operating loss carryover is reduced under the provisions of
OPINION
1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*88 All of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.
Petitioner Kern's Bakery of Virginia, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Virginia. At the time of filing the petitions herein, petitioner had its principal office and place of business at Lynchburg, Va. Petitioner filed its corporate income tax returns for the taxable years 1968, 1969, and 1970 with the District Director in Richmond, Va.
Prior to July 31, 1966, two unrelated families, the Greers and the Browns, owned all the stock in three corporations: Kern's Bakery of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia corporation and petitioner herein; Kern's Bakery, Inc., a Tennessee corporation; and Brown, Greer Co., a North Carolina corporation. Each family owned 50 percent of the fair market value of the stock of each corporation as follows: 68 T.C. 517">*519
Shares | |
I. Kern's Bakery of Virginia, Inc. (petitioner): | |
A. Greers | 5,000 |
1. William C. Greer | 2,500 |
2. John L. Greer, Jr. | 2,500 |
B. Browns | 5,000 |
1. J. Harry Brown | 1,200 |
2. Roy H. Brown, Jr. | 1,900 |
3. T.G. Brown III | 1,900 |
II. Kern's Bakery, Inc.: | |
A. Greers | 375 |
1. William C. Greer | 162 |
2. John L. Greer, Jr. | 162 |
3. John L. Greer, Sr. | 1 |
4. John L. Greer as trustee for grandchildren | 30 |
5. John L. Greer as custodian for granchildren | 19 |
6. Hamilton National Bank as trustee for Greers | 1 |
B. Browns | 375 |
1. J. Harry Brown | 90 |
2. Roy H. Brown Trust | 284 |
3. Hamilton National Bank as trustee for Browns | 1 |
III. Brown, Greer Co.: | |
A. Greers | 500 |
1. William C. Greer | 250 |
2. John L. Greer, Jr. | 249 |
3. Hamilton National Bank as trustee for Greers | 1 |
B. Browns | 500 |
1. J. Harry Brown | 75 |
2. Roy H. Brown Trust | 424 |
3. Hamilton National Bank as trustee for Browns | 1 |
1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*89 On July 31, 1966, these three corporations were reorganized in a tax-free merger as defined in
Subsequent to reorganization, the stock of petitioner, the acquiring corporation, was owned by the same two unrelated families, the Greers and the Browns. Each family owned 50 percent of the fair market value of 100,000 shares of stock as follows:
Shares | |
I. Greers | 50,000 |
A. William C. Greer | 22,858 |
B. John L. Greer, Jr. | 22,831 |
C. John L. Greer, Sr. | 84 |
D. John L. Greer, Sr., as trustee for grandchildren | 2,520 |
E. John L. Greer, as custodian for grandchildren | 1,596 |
F. Hamilton National Bank as trustee for Greers | 111 |
II. Browns | 50,000 |
A. Roy H. Brown, Jr. | 1,900 |
B. T. G. Brown III | 1,900 |
C. J. Harry Brown | 10,785 |
D. Hamilton National Bank et al., trustees under will of | |
Roy H. Brown, Sr. | 35,304 |
E. Hamilton National Bank as trustee for Browns | 111 |
68 T.C. 517">*520 The owners of the stock of the pre-reorganization Kern's Bakery of Virginia, 1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*90 Inc., the loss corporation, received as a result of such ownership, 10 percent of the fair market value of the stock of the post-reorganization Kern's Bakery of Virginia, Inc., petitioner.
Petitioner, in its 1968 and 1969 income tax returns, claimed net operating loss carryovers of $ 297,280.82 and $ 22,091.23, respectively. These deductions were based on the following computations by the petitioner:
Net Operating Losses | |
Amount | |
Year: 1962 | $ 49,716.67 |
1963 | 101,960.22 |
1964 | 296,495.09 |
1965 | 46,115.68 |
1966 | 38,589.38 |
Total | 532,877.04 |
Less: Carryover claimed for 1967 | 213,504.99 |
Amount available to carryover | 319,372.05 |
Less: Carryover claimed for 1968 | 297,280.82 |
Amount available to carryover | 22,091.23 |
Less: Carryover claimed for 1969 | 22,091.23 |
0 |
Respondent, in his statutory notice of deficiency for the year 1968, determined that $ 558,026.58 in net operating loss was unused at the time of reorganization of the petitioner on July 31, 1966, and further determined that 50 percent of this net operating loss was available to carryover because of the application of
Net operating loss at July 31, 1966 | $ 558,026.58 |
Less: 50-percent reduction | 279,013.29 |
Amount available to carryover | 279,013.29 |
Less: Amount allowed for 1966 | 21,457.78 |
Amount available to carryover | 257,555.51 |
Less: Amount allowed for 1967 | 237,898.25 |
Amount available to carryover | 19,657.26 |
Less: Amount allowed for 1968 | 19,657.26 |
0 |
68 T.C. 517">*521 This computation resulted in the disallowance of net operating loss carryovers to 1968 of $ 277,623.56 and to 1969 of $ 22,091.23.
In a reorganization under the circumstances here present, a net operating loss carryover of the transferor
The required reduction, specified in
1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*93 Since the stockholders of the pre-reorganization Kern's Bakery of Virginia, Inc., the loss corporation, received only 10 percent of the fair market value of petitioner as a result of 68 T.C. 517">*522 owning stock in the loss corporation, respondent has determined that petitioner's net operating loss carryover should be reduced by 50 percent. Petitioner argues it is entitled to the full amount of the carryover, contending it is excepted from the required reduction by the following language of
[The reduction] shall not apply if the transferor corporation and the acquiring corporation are owned substantially by the same persons in the same proportion.
The principal question before us is whether immediately prior to the reorganization, the acquiring corporation, petitioner, and the transferor corporations, Kern's Bakery, Inc., and Brown, Greer Co., were "owned substantially by the same persons in the same proportion."
Subsection (b) is designed to prevent the liberalized carryover of net operating losses permitted in
68 T.C. 517">*523 To the extent the shareholders of the loss corporation received less than a 20-percent interest in the successor corporation the net operating loss carryover was reduced under
1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*95 The statutory formula, however, depends largely on the relative asset value of the two corporations. Thus, in a merger between a small loss corporation and a large corporation, the shareholders of the smaller corporation may emerge with only a small percentage of the stock of the reorganized corporation, even where all of the shareholders involved have continued their equity position. Apparently, with a view toward alleviating this problem where both corporations are "owned substantially by the same persons in the same proportion," Congress enacted
1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*96 It is clear that, in the instant case, the proportionate interest of the two
Shares | ||
Pre-reorganization | ||
Kern's Bakery | Kern's | |
Person | of Virginia | Bakery |
William C. Greer | 2,500 | 162 |
John L. Greer, Jr. | 2,500 | 162 |
John L. Greer, Sr. | 1 | |
John L. Greer, Sr., as trustee | ||
for grandchildren | 30 | |
John L. Greer, Sr., as | ||
custodian for | ||
grandchildren | 19 | |
Hamilton National Bank, as | ||
trustee for Greers | 1 | |
Roy H. Brown, Jr. | 1,900 | |
T.G. Brown III | 1,900 | |
J. Harry Brown | 1,200 | 90 |
Hamilton National Bank, et | ||
al., trustees under will of | ||
Roy H. Brown, Sr. (Roy H. | ||
Brown Trust) | 284 | |
Hamilton National Bank, as | ||
trustee for Browns | 1 | |
10,000 | 750 |
Shares | ||
Post-reorganization | ||
Brown-Greer | Kern's Bakery | |
Person | of Virginia | |
William C. Greer | 250 | 22,858 |
John L. Greer, Jr. | 249 | 22,831 |
John L. Greer, Sr. | 84 | |
John L. Greer, Sr., as trustee | ||
for grandchildren | 2,520 | |
John L. Greer, Sr., as | ||
custodian for | ||
grandchildren | 1,596 | |
Hamilton National Bank, as | ||
trustee for Greers | 1 | 111 |
Roy H. Brown, Jr. | 1,900 | |
T.G. Brown III | 1,900 | |
J. Harry Brown | 75 | 10,785 |
Hamilton National Bank, et | ||
al., trustees under will of | ||
Roy H. Brown, Sr. (Roy H. | ||
Brown Trust) | 424 | 35,304 |
Hamilton National Bank, as | ||
trustee for Browns | 1 | 111 |
1,000 | 100,000 |
1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*97 Reduced to percentages, the comparison is as follows:
Stockholding percentages | ||
Pre-reorganization | Transferors | |
Kern's Bakery | ||
of Virginia | Kern's | |
Person | (acquiring) | Bakery |
William C. Greer | 25 | 21.60 |
John L. Greer, Jr. | 25 | 21.60 |
John L. Greer, Sr. | 13 | |
John L. Greer, Sr., as trustee | ||
for grandchildren | 4.00 | |
John L. Greer, Sr., as | ||
custodian for | ||
grandchildren | 2.53 | |
Hamilton National Bank, as | ||
trustee for Greers | .13 | |
Roy H. Brown, Jr. | 19 | |
T.G. Brown III | 19 | |
J. Harry Brown | 12 | 12.00 |
Hamilton National Bank, et | ||
al., trustees under will of | ||
Roy H. Brown, Sr. (Roy H. | ||
Brown Trust) | 37.87 | |
Hamilton National Bank, as | ||
trustee for Browns | .13 | |
100 | 99.99 |
Stockholding percentages | ||
Post-reorganization | ||
Brown-Greer | Kern's Bakery | |
Person | of Virginia | |
William C. Greer | 25.00 | 22.86 |
John L. Greer, Jr. | 24.90 | 22.83 |
John L. Greer, Sr. | .08 | |
John L. Greer, Sr., as trustee | ||
for grandchildren | 2.52 | |
John L. Greer, Sr., as | ||
custodian for | ||
grandchildren | 1.60 | |
Hamilton National Bank, as | ||
trustee for Greers | .10 | .11 |
Roy H. Brown, Jr. | 1.90 | |
T.G. Brown III | 1.90 | |
J. Harry Brown | 7.50 | 10.79 |
Hamilton National Bank, et | ||
al., trustees under will of | ||
Roy H. Brown, Sr. (Roy H. | ||
Brown Trust) | 42.40 | 35.30 |
Hamilton National Bank, as | ||
trustee for Browns | .10 | .11 |
100.00 | 100.00 |
1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*98 68 T.C. 517">*525 These figures make it clear that there was great diversity of ownership in the three corporations prior to the reorganization. Of the nine persons who owned Kern's Bakery, Inc. (one of the transferor corporations), six shareholders with 44.79 percent of the stock had no interest at all in petitioner, the acquiring corporation. Similarly, of the six persons who owned stock in Brown, Greer Co., the other transferor, three shareholders with 42.60 percent of the stock, had no interest in petitioner. Finally, of the six persons owning stock in petitioner, two, with 38 percent of the stock, did not own stock in either of the two transferor corporations.
This pattern of ownership is far wide of the statutory requirement that the transferor corporation and the acquiring corporation be "owned substantially by the same persons in the same proportion." In fact, the examples in the regulations indicate that a 20-percent difference in the ownership of the transferor and acquiring corporations will fall outside the provisions of
1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*99 68 T.C. 517">*526 This Court was also required to interpret the phrase "owned substantially by the same persons in the same proportion" in
Commonwealth | Commonwealth | ||
Shareholder 1 | (before merger) | Tri City | (after merger) |
Paul Densen | 29.66% | 41.94% | 31.20% |
Abbot Greene | 29.66% | 41.94% | 31.20% |
Irwin Densen | 5.00% | 5.00% | 5.00% |
Elmer Hertzmark | 25.00% | 21.74% | |
Trusts for the Densen and Greene | |||
children | 10.68% | 11.02% | 10.72% |
In holding that the transferor corporation and the acquiring corporation were not owned substantially by the same persons in the same proportion, we1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*100 emphasized the wide variations in interest held by Elmer Hertzmark. The variations in interest in the instant case are even more pronounced. For example, as noted above, 44.79 percent of the stock of one of the transferor corporations was held by shareholders with no interest at all in petitioner. The present case, therefore, falls well within our holding in
Within each of the family groups, the Browns and the Greers, each shareholder is related so that the stock of one would be attributable to each of the others under
68 T.C. 517">*527 We must reject petitioner's contention.
(a) General Rule. -- For purposes of those provisions1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*101 of this subchapter to which the rules contained in this section
Where Congress has spelled out the limitations on the use of a section with such specificity, courts should be loath to extend that use. 6 Moreover,
1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*102 Petitioner argues for the use of
Finally, petitioner argues that even without attribution, the shareholders of the loss corporation owned over 60 percent of the acquiring corporation after the reorganization, and that their substantial continuing interest entitles them to a full loss carryover. 1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 84">*103 We have previously rejected this argument in
Petitioner argues first that inasmuch as the stockholders of Tri-City had a controlling interest in petitioner both before and after the merger, there was the requisite continuity of interest in the operating loss carryover which Congress sought to require in order to make the entire operating loss 68 T.C. 517">*528 carryover available to the acquiring corporation. We agree that in enacting
Petitioner articulates what is arguably a more equitable rule, but a rule which is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statute. See Asimow, "Detriment and Benefit of Net Operating Losses: A Unifying Theory,"
1. All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and applicable to the years in issue, unless otherwise stated.↩
2.
(b) Change of Ownership as the Result of a Reorganization. -- (1) In General. -- If, in the case of a reorganization specified in paragraph (2) of (A) has a net operating loss which is a net operating loss carryover to the first taxable year of the acquiring corporation ending after the date of transfer, and (B) the stockholders (immediately before the reorganization) of such corporation (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the "loss corporation"), as the result of owning stock of the loss corporation, own (immediately after the reorganization) less than 20 percent of the fair market value of the outstanding stock of the acquiring corporation, the total net operating loss carryover from prior taxable years of the loss corporation to the first taxable year of the acquiring corporation ending after the date of transfer shall be reduced by the percentage determined under paragraph (2). (2) Reduction of net operating loss carryover. -- The reduction applicable under paragraph (1) shall be the percentage determined by subtracting from 100 percent -- (A) the percent of the fair market value of the outstanding stock of the acquiring corporation owned (immediately after the reorganization) by the stockholders (immediately before the reorganization) of the loss corporation, as the result of owning stock of the loss corporation, multiplied by (B) five.↩
3. However,
4. As we noted in
"We surmise that
5. The examples given in
Sec. 1.382(b)-1(d)
(2) The transferor corporation and the acquiring corporation will be considered as owned substantially by the same persons in the same proportion only if the same persons own substantially all the stock of the corporations in substantially the same proportion. This rule may be illustrated by the following examples:
1. Paul Densen and Irwin Densen were brothers and Abbot Greene was their brother-in-law. Elmer Hertzmark was a Commonwealth Container employee.↩
6. Additionally, Congress specifically applied the attribution rules of
7. See
8.