TSN Liquidating Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Corporations

CorporationsFederal income taxationDividendsSale of subsidiary stocksubstance over formdividend in kindpre-sale distributionstock sale

Facts

TSN owned over 90% of CLIC and agreed with other shareholders to sell CLIC stock to Union Mutual under an agreement that excluded certain specified assets from CLIC at closing. Before closing, CLIC declared a dividend in kind consisting primarily of unwanted over-the-counter stock, and TSN received its share of those assets; Union Mutual then purchased the CLIC stock for a reduced price reflecting the exclusion of those assets. After closing, Union Mutual contributed municipal bonds to CLIC and purchased additional CLIC stock for cash. TSN reported the distribution as a dividend and the stock sale gain on the installment method, but the IRS recharacterized the distribution as part of the sale proceeds.

Issue

When a subsidiary distributes assets to its shareholders immediately before those shareholders sell all of the subsidiary's stock, should the distributed assets be treated for federal income tax purposes as a dividend or as part of the consideration received for the stock sale? More specifically, does later reinfusion of different assets into the subsidiary by the buyer convert the distribution into sale consideration?

Rule

Substance controls over form, and the transaction must be viewed as a whole. But where the buyer negotiated to acquire the corporation without certain assets, did not want them, would not pay for them, and did not receive them, and those assets were actually retained by the selling shareholders, a pre-sale distribution of those assets is treated as a dividend rather than as part of the stock sale price. Waterman-type recharacterization applies where the purported dividend is a sham or conduit for purchaser-funded sale consideration.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Mesa Holdings owned 94% of Summit Valley Insurance in Colorado Springs. Before Blue Mesa sold all of Summit Valley's stock to Prairie Harbor Mutual, Summit Valley distributed a portfolio of thinly traded mining shares to its shareholders because Prairie Harbor had insisted that those shares be removed from the company and reduced the stock price accordingly; Blue Mesa kept the shares after closing.

How should the pre-sale distribution most likely be characterized for federal tax purposes under the majority's rule?

Explanation. The majority treats a pre-sale distribution as a dividend when the buyer negotiated to acquire the corporation without the distributed assets, would not pay for them, did not receive them, and the selling shareholders retained them. The mere fact that the distribution was part of the overall sale arrangement does not convert it into sale consideration. (Derived from TSN Liquidating Corp. v. United States (n.d.).)