Bliss Dairy, Inc. v. U.S., 79-3318
| Citation | 645 F.2d 19 |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-3318,79-3318 |
| Parties | 81-1 USTC P 9429 BLISS DAIRY, INC., an Arizona Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Karl P. Fryzel, Atty. Tax Div., Washington, D. C., argued, for defendant-appellant; Gilbert E. Andrews, Washington, D. C., on brief.
James Silhasek, Wales & Plattner, P. C., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the Order of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before FERGUSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and BONSAL, * District Judge.
The Government appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granting the motion of plaintiff Bliss Dairy, Inc. ("the corporation") for summary judgment. The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred in refusing to apply the "tax benefit" rule to a distribution of assets of a corporation in liquidation pursuant to Sections 333 and 336 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 ("the Code").
The corporation was organized under Arizona law in 1971; as of July 1973, all outstanding shares were held by Mrs. Irene Bliss, her daughter, and her son-in-law. During its fiscal year ending on June 30, 1973, the corporation paid $150,199 for cattle feed for use in its dairy operations, for which it claimed a full tax deduction on its 1973 return in accordance with its cash method of accounting.
On July 2, 1973, immediately after the commencement of its next fiscal year, the corporation adopted a plan of liquidation pursuant to Sections 333 and 336 of the Code. Accordingly, during the month of July 1973, the corporation distributed its assets to its shareholders in proportion to their ownership interest. Among the assets so distributed in accordance with the plan of liquidation was cattle feed valued at $56,565. The value of this feed had been deducted by the corporation in its preceding fiscal year. The shareholders, who continued to operate the dairy business, computed their basis in the feed pursuant to Section 334(c) of the Code and then claimed deductions on their 1973 individual income tax returns.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue increased the corporation's gross income by $60,000 for its final fiscal year. The corporation paid this assessment and filed a suit for refund. The district court, feeling bound by our decision in Commissioner v. South Lake Farms, Inc., 324 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1963), granted the corporation's motion for summary judgment. The Government appeals, and we affirm.
The district court correctly concluded that it was bound by our decision in South Lake Farms, supra. There, we declined to apply the tax benefit rule 1 to a liquidation pursuant to Sections 332 and 336 of the Code because the liquidating corporation received no economic benefit from the transfer of its assets to a successor corporation. South Lake Farms, Inc. ("South Lake") was engaged in farming. Another party, South Lake Farms, purchased all of the stock of South Lake with the intent of liquidating it. The purchase price of the stock reflected the value of certain expenses incurred in the preparation of crops by South Lake, which was then liquidated. The assets were distributed before the time of harvest. In its final tax return, South Lake deducted the expenses incurred in preparing the crops but reported no income in connection with the transfer of the crops, which were harvested after liquidation. We held that since the proceeds of the sale of the stock of South Lake went to its shareholders, South Lake itself received no benefit:
"Nowhere in the Code do we find an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hillsboro National Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue United States v. Bliss Dairy, Inc
... ... Our examination of the provisions granting the deductions and governing the liquidation in these cases lead us to hold that the rule requires the recognition of income in the case of the liquidation but not in the case of the tax refund ... ...
-
HILLSBORO NAT'L BANK V. COMMISSIONER
... ... 81-930, respondent corporation, which operated a dairy, in the taxable year ending June 30, 1973, deducted the ... and governing the liquidation in these cases leads us to hold that the rule requires the recognition of income in ... In No. 81-930, United States v. Bliss Dairy, Inc., the respondent, Bliss Dairy, Inc., was a ... ...
-
Gmelin v. Commissioner
...Bank v. Commissioner 81-1 USTC ¶ 9225, 641 F.2d 529 (7th Cir. 1981), and Bliss Dairy, Inc. v. United States 81-1 USTC ¶ 9429, 645 F.2d 19 (9th Cir. 1981). We will cite to the Supreme Court's opinion as Hillsboro National Bank v. Commissioner 83-1 USTC ¶ 9229, 460 U.S. 370 22 Respondent did ......
-
BALLOU CONST. CO. v. United States
...rule could be applied to section 337 liquidation. However, the Ninth Circuit recently reaffirmed South Lake Farms in Bliss Dairy, Inc. v. United States, 645 F.2d 19 (9th Cir. 1981). In the instant case, the defendant's primary arguments in support of their contention that the tax benefit ru......
-
Tax Aspects of Liquidating a Corporation
...Kan.) 81-2 USTC para. 9638; Commissioner v. South Lake Farms, Inc., 324 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1963) and Bliss Dairy, Inc. v. United States, 645 F.2d 19 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___ (1982). 48. Distributions of appreciated property in transaction that would have qualified as a p......