Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Helvering v. Watts
Helvering v. Watts, 296 U.S. 387 (1935)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1935-12-16
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- stock of one corporation for stock and bonds of another corporation
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Helvering v. Watts. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 75 opinions
Headnotes
- Tax Law — Corporate Reorganizations Where stockholders owning all the shares of one corporation exchange them for stock in another corporation and for mortgage bonds of the first corporation guaranteed by the second, the transaction constitutes a reorganization within the meaning of the governing revenue act, and no taxable gain results from the exchange, notwithstanding that the first corporation continues to conduct business. 296 U.S. at 388
- Tax Law — Treasury Regulations A treasury regulation defining reorganization to include the acquisition by one corporation of the stock of another in exchange for stock and securities is a proper interpretation of the statute where Congress, after the regulation was promulgated, reenacted the paragraph to which it refers without change, thereby indicating its approval of the regulation as written. 296 U.S. at 389
- Tax Law — Corporate Reorganizations Mortgage bonds of a corporation guaranteed by the acquiring corporation, received by stockholders in exchange for their shares in a reorganization, are "securities" within the meaning of the statute and are not to be treated as cash, so that the exchange does not produce a substantial change of position giving rise to taxable gain. 296 U.S. at 389
HELVERINGv. WATTS,296 U.S. 387(1935)
56 S.Ct. 275
HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,v. WATTS.fn*
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 184.
Argued November 20, 1935.
Decided December 16, 1935.
CERTIORARIfn†to review a judgment reversing a decision of
the Board of Tax Appeals,28 B.T.A. 1056, which sustained a
deficiency assessment of income taxes.
By leave of Court,Mr. Edward H. Greenfiled a brief asamicus curiae, supporting the contentions of respondents.
They were the sole stockholders of United States Ferro Alloys Corporation — herein Ferro Alloys — and the causes, alike in all essential particulars, were dealt with below in one opinion.
The respondents maintain that they exchanged all stock of Ferro Alloys for shares of Vanadium Corporation of America and bonds of Ferro Alloys guaranteed by Vanadium; that these two corporations were parties to a reorganization, and that under § 203(b)(2), Revenue Act, 1924, no taxable gain resulted. The Commissioner insists that the transaction was a sale of all the stock of the Ferro Alloys and therefore taxable gain resulted. The applicable statutory provision is § 203, Revenue Act, 1924, the pertinent parts of which are in the margin of the opinion inHelveringv.Minnesota Tea Co., ante, p. 378.
In December, 1924, respondents owned all the stock of Ferro Alloys Corporation. They exchanged this with the Vanadium Corporation for stock of the latter valued at $30 per share and for $1,161,184.50 mortgage bonds of Ferro Alloys guaranteed by Vanadium. Ferro Alloys continued to conduct business until its dissolution in 1928. Article 1574 of Treasury Regulations 65 provided that under the Act of 1924 no gain or loss shall be recognized to the shareholders from the exchange of stock made in connection with the reorganization, if two or more corporations reorganize, for example, by either the sale of the stock of B to A, or the acquisition by A of a majority of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock of B.Page 389
The transaction here involved is within the description of reorganization recognized by the Treasury Regulation above quoted. And if the regulation can be taken as properly interpreting the statute, the challenged judgment must be affirmed.
The court below recites the history of the Treasury Regulation above quoted and concludes that, in view of the reenactment of the paragraph to which it refers without change, Congress intended to approve the regulation as written.
The Commissioner here maintains that the definition of reorganization found in § 203(h)(1)(A), Revenue Act, 1924, should be limited to transactions which partake of the nature of mergers or consolidations and that here the Vanadium merely made an investment in Ferro Alloys stock and obtained only the rights of a stockholder therein. It is also urged that an exchange of stocks for bonds results in a substantial change of position and that such bonds are "other property" within the meaning of the statute and as such subject to tax. Much of the argument presented is the same as the one considered in theMinnesota TeaCompanycase, and it need not be again followed in detail. The bonds, we think, were securities within the definition and cannot be regarded as cash, as were the short term notes referred to inPinellas Ice Co. v.Commissioner,287 U.S. 462.
The judgment of the court below must beAffirmed.