Groman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
| Citation | 58 S.Ct. 108,302 U.S. 82,302 U.S. 654,82 L.Ed. 63 |
| Decision Date | 08 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 21,21 |
| Parties | GROMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Dec. 6, 1937.
Messrs. Egbert Robertson and James C. Spence, both of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
This case involves the meaning and scope of the phrase 'a party to a reorganization' as used in section 112 of the Revenue Act of 1928.1
January 29, 1929, the petitioner, and all other shareholders of Metals Refining Company, an Indiana corporation, hereinafter designated Indiana, entered into a contract with the Glidden Company, an Ohio corporation, reciting that the shareholders of Indiana were desirous of merging and consolidating the properties of their company with Glidden and with a corporation Gildden was to organize under the laws of Ohio, which corporation we shall call Ohio. The shareholders covenanted that they would assign their shares to Ohio, which was to have a specified capital structure divided into preferred and common shares, and Gildden covenanted that it would issue and deliver, or cause to be issued and delivered to the shareholders a stated number of shares of its own prior preference stock at an agreed valuation, a stated number of shares of the preferred stock of Ohio, also at an agreed valuation, and sufficient cash to equal the appraised value of Indiana's assets as of March 1, 1929, and that, after the exchange of stock, Gildden would cause Indiana to transfer its assets to Ohio.
Glidden organized Ohio and became the owner of all its common stock but none of its preferred stock. Pursuant to the contract the shareholders of Indiana transferred their stock to Ohio and received therefor a total consideration of $1,207,016 consisting of Glidden prior preference stock valued at $533,980, shares of the pre- ferred stock of Ohio valued at $500,000, and $153,036 in cash. Indiana then transferred its assets to Ohio and was dissolved.
As a result of the reorganization petitioner received shares of Glidden stock, shares of Ohio stock, and $17,293 in cash. In his return for 1929 he included the $17,293 as income received but ignored the shares of Glidden and of Ohio as stock received in exchange in a reorganization. The respondent ruled that Glidden was not a party to a reorganization within the meaning of the Revenue Act, treated the transaction as a taxable exchange to the extent of the cash and shares of Glidden, and determined a deficiency of $7,420. Upon receipt of notice to this effect the petitioner appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals which reversed the Commissioner, holding that Glidden was a party to a reorganization. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Board.2 We granted the writ of certiorari because of an alleged conflict of decision.3
Section 112(b)(3) of the Revenue Act of 1928 (26 U.S.C.A. § 112(b)(3) and note) declares that 'No gain or loss shall be recognized if stock or securities in a corporation a party to a reorganization are, in pursuance of the plan of reorganization, exchanged solely for stock or securities in such corporation or in another corporation a party to the reorganization.' If the transaction involves the receipt of such stock or securities and 'also of other property or money' then the gain, if any, is to be recognized in an amount not in excess of the sum of such money and the fair market value of such other property. (Section 112(c)(1), 26 U.S.C.A. § 112(c)(1) and note.)
Section 112(i)(1) declares: 'The term 'reorganization' means (A) a merger or consolidation (including the acquisition by one corporation of at least a majority of the voting stock and at least a majority of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock of another corporation, or substantially all the properties of another corporation), or (B) a transfer by a corporation of all or a part of its assets to another corporation if immediately after the transfer the transferor or its stockholders or both are in control of the corporation to which the assets are transferred, or (C) a recapitalization, or (D) a mere change in identity, form, or place of organization, however effected.' Subsection (2) is: 'The term 'a party to a reorganization' includes a corporation resulting from a reorganization and includes both corporations in the case of an acquisition by one corporation of at least a majority of the voting stock and at least a majority of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock of another corporation.' 26 U.S.C.A. § 112(g)(1, 2) note.
It is agreed that under the plain terms of the statute the cash received by the petitioner was income, and that as the stock of Ohio was obtained in part payment for that of Indiana, the exchange, to that extent, did not give rise to income to be included in the computation of petitioner's tax.
The question is whether that portion of the consideration consisting of prior preference shares of Glidden should be recognized in determining petitioner's taxable gain. The decision of this question depends upon whether Glidden's stock was that of a party to the reorganization for, if so, the statute declares gain or loss due to its receipt shall not be included in the taxpayer's computation of income for the year in which the exchange was made.
If section 112(i)(2) is a definition of a party to a reorganization and excludes corporations not therein described, Glidden was not a party since its relation to the transaction is not within the terms of the definition. It was not a corporation resulting from the reorganization; and it did not acquire a majority of the shares of voting stock and a majority of the shares of all other classes of stock of any other corporation in the reorganization. The Circuit Court of Appeals thought the section was intended as a definition of the term party as used in the act and excluded all corporations not specifically described. It therefore held Glidden could not be considered a party to the reorganization.
The petitioner contends, we think correctly, that the section is not a definition but rather is intended to enlarge the connotation of the term 'a party to a reorganization' to embrace corporations whose relation to the transaction would not in common usage be so denominated or as to whose status doubt might otherwise arise. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that when an exclusive definition is intended the word 'means' is employed, as in the section we have quoted defining reorganization and in section 112(j), 26 U.S.C.A. § 112(h) and note, defining the term 'control,' whereas here the word used is 'includes.' If more were needed section 701(b) 26 U.S.C.A. § 1696(17) declares: 'The terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition (contained in this Act) shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.'
The Treasury, in its regulations, has construed the section as not embodying an exclusive definition.4 The administrative construction of an identical section in the Revenue Acts of 1924 and 1926 has been the same.5
If the shareholders of A, and those of B, should agree to convey their stock to a new corporation C, in exchange for C's stock, a reorganization, as defined in section 112(i)(1) would be effected. But it might well be contended, were it not for section 112(i)(2), that the shareholders of the old corporations had not received stock in a nontaxable exchange, as specified in section 112(b)(3), since the new corporation C was not a party to the exchange. In the present instance, Indiana had no part in the transaction. The shareholders agreed to transfer their stock to Ohio in exchange for securities. Indiana, as such, was not a party to any agreement and took no corporate action. If the plan had contemplated the continued existence of Indiana, and part payment of its shareholders in bonds or preferred stock of that company, and part in shares of Ohio, while this would clearly have constitued a reorganization as defined by the act, it might, with reason, be urged that, as respects the bonds or preferred stock of Indiana, the exchange was taxable since Indiana was not a party to the reorganization. Section 112(i)(2) precludes the contention.6
Plainly, however, there may be corporate parties to reorganizations, within the meaning of the statute, other than those enumerated in section 112(i)(2). Thus if corporations A and B transfer all their assets to C, a new corporation, in exchange for all C's stock, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diller v. Diller
...Colautti v. Franklin , 439 U.S. 379, 392-393, 99 S.Ct. 675, 58 L.Ed.2d 596 (1979), fn. 10 ; see Groman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 302 U.S. 82, 86, 58 S.Ct. 108, 82 L.Ed. 63 (1937) ("[W]hen an exclusive definition is intended the word ‘means’ is employed, * * * whereas here the wo......
-
Heverly v. C. I. R.
...86 L.Ed. 775 (1942); LeTulle v. Scofield, 308 U.S. 415, 420, 60 S.Ct. 313, 315, 84 L.Ed. 355 (1940); Groman v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 82, 89, 58 S.Ct. 108, 112, 82 L.Ed. 63 (1937); Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co., 296 U.S. 378, 385, 56 S.Ct. 269, 272, 80 L.Ed. 284 (1935); John A. Nelson Co. ......
-
Maine Steel, Inc. v. United States
...U.S. 415, 60 S.Ct. 313, 84 L.Ed. 355; Helvering v. Bashford, 1938, 302 U.S. 454, 58 S.Ct. 307, 82 L.Ed. 367; Groman v. Commissioner, 1937, 302 U.S. 82, 58 S.Ct. 108, 82 L.Ed. 63; G. & K. Manufacturing Co. v. Helvering, 1935, 296 U.S. 389, 56 S.Ct. 276, 80 L.Ed. 291; Helvering v. Watts, 1935......
-
Verble v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC
...Id. § 78u-6(a)(6). “[W]hen an exclusive definition is intended the word ‘means' is employed.” Groman v. Commissioner of I nternal R evenue , 302 U.S. 82, 86, 58 S.Ct. 108, 82 L.Ed. 63 (1937) (describing a definition that uses the term “means” as exclusive, and a definition that uses that te......
-
Getting back to basics - proposed continuity regulations.
...see, e.g., Letter Ruling 9111055. COBE Another judicial requirement of reorganizations was established by the Supreme Court in Groman, 302 US 82 (1937), and Bashford, 302 US 454 (1938), and became known as the "remote continuity of interest" doctrine. This doctrine required the newly acquir......
-
Check the timing of the check-the-box election.
...This was done in response to the "remote continuity of interest" concerns presented by the Supreme Court's decisions in Groman, 302 US 82 (1937), and Bashford, 302 US 454 (1938). In contrast to that goal, applying Sec. 368(a)(2)(C) to prevent Example 2 from qualifying as a foreign-to-foreig......
-
Proposed section 368 regulations (remote continuity-of-interest doctrine).
...Given Continued Deference? The remote continuity-of-interest doctrine emanates from two Supreme Court decisions: Groman v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 82 (1937), and Helvering v. Bashford, 302 U.S. 454 (1938). As explained in the preamble, the cases are read as holding that if T transfers its as......
-
Reflections on the new COBE regs.
...The second element (position) was generally understood to be limited by Code provisions and two historic Supreme Court cases (Groman, 302 US 82 (1937) and Bashford, 302 US 454 (1938)). For reorganizations occurring after Jan. 28, 1998, Treasury finalized regulations expanding the scope of p......