Northern Trust Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Decision Date11 August 1986
Docket Number21440-80,21439-80,Docket Nos. 6859-80,21441-80,21442-80.
Citation87 T.C. No. 21,87 T.C. 349
PartiesTHE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, TRANSFEREE AND TRUSTEE; ARTHUR L. SIMON, TRANSFEREE AND TRUSTEE; AND JEFFERY J. SIMON, TRANSFEREE AND TRUSTEE, ET AL.,1 Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
CourtU.S. Tax Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

In furtherance of an ‘estate tax freeze‘ plan, after a corporate reorganization J, W, P, L and C transferred shares of Class A voting common stock and Class B non-voting common stock of CCC, a closely held company, to certain long-term trusts. C died three days after transferring her shares. HELD, the fair market value of the shares for Federal estate and gift tax purposes determined. The value was not affected by the transfer of the stock to the trusts. Estate of Curry v. United States, 706 F.2d 1424 (7th Cir. 1983); and Ahmanson Foundation v. United States, 674 F.2d 761 (9th Cir. 1981), applied. William H. Pokorny, Jr. and James A. Clark, for the petitioners.

Thomas C. Borders and Luanne D. Dimauro, for the respondent.

NIMS, JUDGE:

Respondent determined a deficiency of $154,683.45 in the Federal estate tax of petitioner, the Estate of Cecilia C. Simon.2 Respondent determined the following deficiencies in other petitioners' Federal gift taxes:3

+--------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦          ¦Calendar      ¦                  ¦           ¦
                +----------+--------------+------------------+-----------¦
                ¦Docket No.¦quarter ending¦Petitioner        ¦Deficiency ¦
                +----------+--------------+------------------+-----------¦
                ¦21439-80  ¦June 30, 1976 ¦John H. Curran    ¦$131,777.60¦
                +----------+--------------+------------------+-----------¦
                ¦21440-80  ¦June 30, 1976 ¦William Curran    ¦131,777.60 ¦
                +----------+--------------+------------------+-----------¦
                ¦21441-80  ¦June 30, 1976 ¦Patricia A. Curran¦131,777.60 ¦
                +----------+--------------+------------------+-----------¦
                ¦21442-80  ¦June 30, 1976 ¦Linda R. Curran   ¦131,777.60 ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------+
                

The issue for decision is the fair market value of six shares of Class A common voting stock and 2,300 share of Class B non-voting common stock of Curran Contracting Company held respectively by petitioners John Curran, William Curran and the Estate of Cecilia Simon on May 7, 1976 (see footnote 21).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.

Cecilia Simon died a resident of Illinois on May 11, 1976. Petitioners John H. Curran and Linda Curran, husband and wife, and petitioners William Curran and Patricia Curran, husband and wife, resided in Illinois at the time their respective petitions were filed.

Petitioners John Curran (John) and William Curran (William), together with their sisters Cecilia Simon (Cecilia) and Judy Pokorny (Judy), were the sole shareholders of Curran Contracting Company (CCC), a Delaware corporation engaged in the asphalt paving business. CCC had been incorporated in December, 1975, as part of an overall plan of reorganization of several companies owned by members of the Curran family. The reorganization of the Curran family companies occurred as follows:

Prior to the incorporation of CCC, John, William, Cecilia and Judy, together with their cousin Henrietta Johnston (Henrietta), owned all of the issued and outstanding stock of Suburban Oil Company (Suburban) and H.J. Curran Contracting Company (HJCCC) as follows:

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦           ¦Stock ownership                                        ¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------------------------¦
                ¦Shareholder¦Suburban                   ¦HJCCC                      ¦
                +-----------+---------------------------+---------------------------¦
                ¦John       ¦144 shares of voting common¦148 shares of voting common¦
                +-----------+---------------------------+---------------------------¦
                ¦William    ¦144 shares of voting common¦148 shares of voting common¦
                +-----------+---------------------------+---------------------------¦
                ¦Cecilia    ¦142 shares of voting common¦146 shares of voting common¦
                +-----------+---------------------------+---------------------------¦
                ¦Judy       ¦142 shares of voting common¦146 shares of voting common¦
                +-----------+---------------------------+---------------------------¦
                ¦Henrietta  ¦16 shares of voting common ¦3,520 shares of preferred  ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

Suburban was the parent company directly or indirectly of Holland Company (Holland) and Holland Railway Equipment, Ltd. (Holland, Ltd.). HJCCC was the parent company directly or indirectly of Stahl Construction Company (Stahl), Curran Development Corporation (Curran Development) and Kaneland Construction Company (Kaneland).

As the first step in a reorganization of the above companies, Suburban merged 4 with HJCCC. To effect this merger Suburban redeemed the 16 shares of Suburban common stock owned by Henrietta for $3,730 per share. The remaining shareholders then contributed their shares of Suburban common stock to HJCCC, where it was included in the paid-in capital surplus account of that company.

Subsequent to the merger of Suburban and HJCCC, HJCCC redeemed the 3,520 shares of HJCCC preferred stock owned by Henrietta for $30 per share. HJCCC then merged with CCC. Pursuant to the terms of the merger, John, William, Judy and Cecilia received the following shares of CCC stock:

+-------------------------------------------------+
                ¦Shareholder¦Shares of stock owned                ¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------¦
                ¦John       ¦6 shares class A voting common       ¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------¦
                ¦           ¦2,300 shares class B nonvoting common¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------¦
                ¦           ¦1,960 shares nonvoting preferred     ¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------¦
                ¦William    ¦6 shares class A voting common       ¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------¦
                ¦           ¦2,300 shares class B nonvoting common¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------¦
                ¦           ¦1,960 shares nonvoting preferred     ¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------¦
                ¦Judy       ¦6 shares class A voting common       ¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------¦
                ¦           ¦2,300 shares class B nonvoting common¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------¦
                ¦           ¦1,933 shares nonvoting preferred     ¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------¦
                ¦Cecilia    ¦6 shares class A voting common       ¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------¦
                ¦           ¦2,300 shares class B nonvoting common¦
                +-----------+-------------------------------------¦
                ¦           ¦1,933 shares nonvoting preferred     ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------+
                

Each share of CCC preferred stock provided for a non-cumulative dividend of $80. At the time of the reorganization, CCC had adequate earnings to pay these dividends. The Curran companies, however, had historically paid very small dividends and at the time of the reorganization CCC's board of directors did not intend to pay dividends on CCC's preferred stock. The past and present management of CCC believed that profits should be reinvested in the business rather than paid out as dividends.

Moreover, the preferred shareholders of CCC could not compel the company to redeem their stock. The board of directors of CCC, however, could call the preferred stock at a charter specified redemption price of $1,000 per share. John and William intended to cause CCC to redeem their preferred shares at the time of their respective deaths for an amount that would produce sufficient income to pay the living expenses of their surviving spouses. They also intended to redeem the preferred shares owned by Cecilia and Judy at the time of each of their husband's deaths for an amount that would produce sufficient income to pay the living expenses of Cecilia and Judy. John and William did not intend to redeem the preferred stock for the stated price of $1,000 per share.

After the merger of CCC and HJCCC, John became CCC's president and chairman of its board of directors. William became CCC's vice- president and a member of its board of directors. Jim Johnston, a cousin of John and William, served as CCC's secretary and as the third and final member of its board of directors.

As a result of the merger of HJCCC with CCC, CCC became the parent company directly or indirectly of Stahl, Kaneland, Suburban, Curran Development, Holland and Holland, Ltd. These companies were engaged in the following businesses:

CCC, Stahl and Kaneland were primarily engaged in he asphalt paving business. CCC performed most of its work in McHenry County, Illinois, which was the site of its asphalt production plant.5 CCC received approximately 80 percent of its work from Federal, state and local governments. The remaining 20 percent of its work was done for larger commercial concerns.

Stahl performed most of its work for Northern Illinois University located in DeKalb County, Illinois. DeKalb County was the site of Stahl's asphalt production plant. During the l970s, Northern Illinois University was rapidly expanding. As of May, 1976, this expansion was projected to continue through 1978.

Kaneland, which was located in Kane County, Illinois, had no access to an asphalt plant. Kaneland was therefore limited to performing ‘squirt work‘ in Kane County, which involved spraying oil on dusty gravel roads.

Suburban was engaged in the retail sale of heating oil to homeowners and commercial and industrial concerns located on the west side of Chicago and its western suburbs. During the early l970s, Suburban's oil business sharply declined as gas replaced oil as the main energy source for residential and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Estate of True v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • July 6, 2001
    ...of the stock to be valued. See Estate of Gilford v. Commissioner [Dec. 43,622], 88 T.C. 38, 60 (1987); Northern Trust Co. v. Commissioner [Dec. 43,261], 87 T.C. 349, 383-389 (1986), affd. sub nom. Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner [88-1 USTC ¶ 13,755], 839 F.2d 1249 (7th Cir. 1988);......
  • Strangi v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • November 30, 2000
    ...further supported by the decision of Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 839 F.2d 1249 (7th Cir. 1988), affg. Northern Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 349 (1986). There, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the taxable value of a gift is not altered by the terms ......
  • Gulig v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Strangi), 4102–99.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • November 30, 2000
    ...supported by the decision of Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 839 F.2d 1249 (7th Cir.1988), affg. Northern Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 349, 1986 WL 22171 (1986). There, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the taxable value of a gift is not altered by the ......
  • Estate of Murphy v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • August 30, 1990
    ...761 (9th Cir. 1981); Estate of Curry v. United States [83-1 USTC ¶ 13,518], 706 F.2d 1424 (7th Cir. 1981); Northern Trust Co. v. Commissioner [Dec. 43,261], 87 T.C. 349 (1986), affd. sub nom. Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner [88-1 USTC ¶ 13,755], 839 F.2d 1249 (7th Cir. 1988); Esta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Measuring insolvency for sec. 108 purposes: suggested valuation guidelines.
    • United States
    • The Tax Adviser Vol. 26 No. 10, October 1995
    • October 1, 1995
    ...N.Y., Inc., 366 US 380 (19611(7 AFTR2D 1451, 61-1 USTC [paragraph] 9462). (15) See, e.g., The Northern Trust Co., Transferee and Trustee, 87 TC 349, 3 78-381 (1986). (16) See, e.g., "Stock Is Worthless, But It Finds Buyers On a Top Exchange," The New York Times (3/18/92), p. 1. (17) See, ge......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT