CHAPTER 19

CORPORATIONS: DISTRIBUTIONS IN COMPLETE

LIQUIDATION AND AN OVERVIEW OF REORGANIZATIONS

SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEM MATERIALS

Status: Q/P
Question/ Present in Prior
Problem Topic Edition Edition

1 Corporate liquidation for tax purposes Unchanged 1

2 Liquidations and redemptions compared; Unchanged 2
applicability of § 267
3 Related-party loss limitation in complete liquidation; New
disqualified property defined
4 Tax consequences to shareholder in complete Unchanged 4
liquidation; use of installment method to report
gain
5 Liquidation of subsidiary; general requirements Unchanged 5
6 Tax consequences in liquidation of subsidiary Unchanged 6
when minority interest is involved
7 Liquidation of subsidiary; indebtedness to parent Unchanged 7
8 Liquidation of subsidiary; tax consequences to Modified 8
parent and subsidiary
9 Requirements for application of § 338 Unchanged 9
10 Tax consequences of a § 338 election Unchanged 10
11 Reason for decline in mergers Unchanged 11
12 Similarities of reorganizations and like-kind Unchanged 12
exchanges
13 Recognition and deferral of gain on reorganization Unchanged 13
14 Issue ID Unchanged 14
15 Liquidations and redemptions compared; recognition Unchanged 15
of losses by corporation and shareholder
16 Complete liquidation; distribution of property Modified 16
subject to liability
17 Complete liquidation; sale of loss property Unchanged 17

19-1
19-2 2004 Comprehensive Volume/Solutions Manual

Status: Q/P
Question/ Present in Prior
Problem Topic Edition Edition

18 Complete liquidation; sale of built-in loss property Unchanged 18

19 Complete liquidation; distribution of disqualified Unchanged 19
property to related parties
20 Complete liquidation; application of related-party Unchanged 20
loss limitation
21 Complete liquidation; disqualified and built-in Unchanged 21
loss property
22 Complete liquidation; tax consequences to Modified 22
shareholder when installment notes distributed
23 Liquidation of subsidiary; distribution of loss Unchanged 23
property to minority shareholder
24 Liquidation of subsidiary; indebtedness of Modified 24
subsidiary to parent
25 Liquidation of subsidiary; tax consequences to Unchanged 25
subsidiary and parent
26 Nonapplicability of § 332 to an insolvent subsidiary Unchanged 26
27 When not to make the § 338 election Unchanged 27
28 Nature of gain recognized by shareholder Unchanged 28
29 Effect on basis when gain recognized Unchanged 29
30 Gain recognition and basis computation Unchanged 30
 Corporations: Complete Liquidations and Reorganizations 19-3

CHECK FIGURES

15.a. Hawk no loss recognized; Michele no 24. Green recognizes no loss; Orange
loss recognized and basis of recognizes $30,000 gain.
15.b. $180,000 25.a. $0.
Hawk no loss recognized; Michele 25.b. $0.
$40,000 loss recognized and basis of 25.c. $900,000.
16.a. $180,000. 25.d. Carry over to Cardinal.
16.b. $600,000 LTCG. 26. Section 332 does not apply; ordinary
17. $700,000 LTCG. loss allowed.
18. $20,000. 27.a. Yes.
19. $15,000. 27.b No
20. $0. 28. $20,000 dividend and $10,000 capital
Pink should either distribute the land gain.
to Paul or sell it and distribute the 29.a. $20,000 dividend and $10,000 capital
21. cash. gain. Stock basis $100,000, bond
Pink should either distribute the land basis $60,000, and land basis
to Paul or sell it and distribute the $20,000.
22. cash. 29.b. Nontaxable to Redbird. Bluebird’s
Helen must recognize $75,000 of basis $900,000.
23. gain in the year of liquidation. 30.a. Rosa’s basis $60,000; Arvid’s basis
Magenta no gain or loss recognized; $155,000.
Fuchsia no gain or loss recognized 30.b. Pine’s gain $25,000; Lodgepole gain
and basis of $620,000; Marta $20,000 $0.
gain recognized and basis of $50,000.
19-4 2004 Comprehensive Volume/Solutions Manual

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. For tax purposes, a corporate liquidation exists when a corporation ceases to be a going
concern. The corporation continues solely to wind up affairs, pay debts, and distribute
any remaining assets to its shareholders. Retention of a nominal amount of assets to pay
remaining debts and preserve legal status will not defeat liquidation status. Legal
dissolution under state law is not required for a liquidation to be complete for tax
purposes. pp. 19-2 and 19-3

2. Section 267 disallows losses realized in transactions between related parties (e.g.,
corporation and a 50% shareholder). The provision applies in the case of a qualifying
stock redemption, but not in the case of a liquidation. p. 19-4

3. Disqualified property is property that is acquired by the liquidating corporation in a § 351

transaction or as a contribution of capital during the 19-year period ending on the date of
the distribution. pp. 19-5 and 19-6

4. The general rule under § 331 provides for sale or exchange treatment to the shareholder.
The shareholder is treated as having sold his or her stock to the corporation being
liquidated. Thus, the difference between the fair market value of the assets received from
the corporation and the adjusted basis of the stock surrendered is the gain or loss
recognized. Typically, the stock is a capital asset in the hands of the shareholder and
capital gain or loss results. The basis for property received in a liquidation is the
property’s fair market value on the date of the distribution.

A shareholder’s gain on the receipt of installment notes obtained by a liquidating

corporation on the sale of its assets may be deferred to the point of collection under
§ 453(h). The shareholder must allocate stock basis among the various assets received
from the corporation. With respect to the notes received, the shareholder may defer gain
until the notes are collected.

p. 19-9 and Example 13

5. a. The date of the adoption of a plan of complete liquidation is crucial in

determining whether § 332 applies. The parent corporation must own 80% or
more of the subsidiary’s voting stock and 80% or more in value of all its other
stock (other than nonvoting preferred) at the time the plan of liquidation is
adopted (and until all property is distributed), or the liquidation will not qualify
under § 332.

b. The period of time in which the corporation must liquidate also is crucial in
determining whether § 332 applies. The subsidiary must distribute all its property
in complete redemption of all its stock within the taxable year in which the first
distribution is made or within three years from the close of the tax year in which
the first distribution occurred pursuant to the adoption of a plan by the
corporation. Otherwise, the liquidation will not qualify under § 332.

c. The subsidiary must be solvent, or § 332 will not apply. If the subsidiary is
insolvent, the parent corporation will have a deductible ordinary loss for its
worthless stock in the subsidiary.

pp. 19-10, 19-11, and Footnote 13

 Corporations: Complete Liquidations and Reorganizations 19-5

6. The nonrecognition provisions apply to liquidating distributions to the parent

corporation. For a distribution to a minority shareholder, however, gain but not loss is
recognized by the subsidiary. From the subsidiary’s perspective then, distributions to
minority shareholders are treated the same as nonliquidating distributions. p. 19-11

7. When § 332 applies, the subsidiary does not recognize gain or loss upon the transfer of
property to the parent. This is the case even if the transfer satisfies a debt. The parent
corporation may recognize a gain or loss on the receipt of property in satisfaction of
indebtedness, however. Examples 15 and 16

8. Condor will recognize no gain or loss and will have a carryover basis of $900,000 in
Dove’s assets. Condor acquires any of Dove’s tax attributes (e.g., net operating loss
carryover). Condor’s basis in the Dove stock disappears. Dove recognizes no gain or
loss on the liquidation. pp. 19-10 and 19-12

9. For § 338 to apply, the parent must “purchase” within a 12-month period at least 80% of
the voting power and at least 80% of the value of the acquired corporation. “Purchase” is
defined by § 338(h)(3) to include all acquisitions of stock except the following: (1) a
transaction where basis of the stock is the same as in the hands of the transferor, (2) an
acquisition of stock by inheritance, (3) a transaction where § 351 applies, and (4) an
acquisition of stock from a related party where ownership of the stock would have been
attributed to the transferee under § 318. The acquiring corporation must then make the
§ 338 election by the 15th day of the ninth month following the “qualified stock
purchase.” p. 19-13

10. Upon a § 338 election, the subsidiary is treated as having sold its assets on the date of the
qualified stock purchase. The deemed selling price is determined with reference to the
parent’s basis in the subsidiary stock plus liabilities of the subsidiary. The subsidiary
recognizes gain (or loss) as a result of the deemed sale. Then, as of the day following the
qualified stock purchase date, the subsidiary is treated as a new corporation that
purchased those same assets for a similarly computed amount. The deemed purchase of
the assets thus results in a stepped-up (or -down) basis in the assets. Since the subsidiary
is treated as a new corporation, its tax attributes (e.g., E & P) start anew as of such date.
If the subsidiary is liquidated, it recognizes no gain (or loss) as a result of the liquidation
(except for gain on distributions to minority shareholders).

The parent corporation incurs no gain (or loss) as a result of the § 338 election, and it
retains its basis in the subsidiary stock. If, however, the subsidiary is liquidated, the
subsidiary stock basis disappears and the parent takes the stepped-up (or -down) basis in
the assets acquired. The parent recognizes no gain (or loss) on the liquidation.

pp. 19-13 and 19-14

11. The economic downturn in 2001 has caused a slowdown in mergers and acquisitions.
U.S. restructuring transactions over $5 million are expected to be down more than 25
percent and the value of these deals was down by at least 50 percent. p. 19-14

12. The transaction receiving similar tax treatment to that of corporate reorganizations is
like-kind exchanges. The tax treatments are similar in that both transactions permit the
current nonrecognition of realized gain. If boot is present, gain may be recognized under
both types of transactions. Any realized but unrecognized gain is postponed until a
future taxable event occurs. The vehicle for the postponement of gain is the basis in the
new asset received. Thus, a reorganization is essentially treated as a nontaxable
exchange of like-kind ownership of a corporation. p. 19-17
19-6 2004 Comprehensive Volume/Solutions Manual

13. Yes, it possible for both the acquiring and the target corporation to recognize gain in a
§ 368 reorganization. The acquiring corporation will recognize gains when it transfers
appreciated assets to the target. The target recognizes gain if it does not distribute to its
shareholders the assets received from the acquiring corporation, or if it distributes its own
appreciated assets to its shareholders. In addition, if the assets received from the
acquiring corporation have appreciated prior to the distribution to the target’s
shareholders, then gain must be recognized. It is not possible, however, for either the
acquiring or target corporation to recognize losses on the § 368 reorganization. No, it is
not possible for corporations to permanently avoid the tax on the transaction. The gain is
merely deferred rather than forgiven. The computation of the shareholder’s basis in the
stock received in the reorganization guarantees that any gain not recognized at the time of
the reorganization is deferred until the shareholder’s next transaction involving this
stock. pp. 19-17 to 19-19

14. Some tax issues to consider are listed below. This should not be considered an
exhaustive list of possible issues.

• What is Channel’s basis in her Fern stock?

• What is Channel’s basis in her Ivy Stock?

• Is the receipt of the bond considered boot by Channel?

• Does a portion of the transaction qualify for stock redemption treatment?

• If yes, what is the amount of capital gain Channel will recognize?

• Will the transaction qualify as a “Type A” merger?

• Did Ivy assume all of Fern’s liabilities?

• Were all state law requirements met?

• Is the continuity of interest test met, that is, what did the other Fern shareholders
receive?

• Could the reorganization meet the requirements of a “Type C” reorganization?

• Will either Fern, Channel, or Ivy be required to recognize gain on the transaction?

pp. 19-17 to 19-21

PROBLEMS

15. a. No loss is recognized by either Hawk Corporation or Michele. In the case of

Hawk, the $20,000 loss realized [$180,000 (fair market value) – $200,000 (basis)]
on the nonliquidating distribution of the land is disallowed under § 311(a). (Note:
Hawk Corporation’s loss also would be disallowed under § 267.) As to Michele,
her $40,000 loss realized [$180,000 (fair market value of land) – $220,000 (stock
basis)] in the qualifying stock redemption is disallowed under § 267 because
Michele and Hawk Corporation are related parties. Under that provision, Michele
is deemed to own the stock of her sisters, or 100% of the Hawk stock in total.
Her basis in the land is its fair market value, or $180,000.
 Corporations: Complete Liquidations and Reorganizations 19-7

b. Hawk Corporation recognizes no loss and Michele recognizes a $40,000 loss. In

the case of Hawk, the $20,000 loss realized on the liquidating distribution of the
land is not recognized under the related-party loss limitation of § 336(d)(1). The
distribution of the land to Michele, a related party (under § 267), is not pro rata
with respect to the shareholders. As to Michele, her $40,000 loss is recognized.
Section 267 does not apply in the case of liquidating distributions. Her basis in
the land is its fair market value, or $180,000.

pp. 19-3, 19-4, 19-9, and Example 2

16. a. Oriole Corporation would have recognized gain of $600,000 [$900,000 (fair
market value) – $300,000 (basis)]. Under the general rule of § 336(a), the land is
treated as if it were sold for its fair market value. Since the land was a capital
asset held for more than one year, Oriole has a $600,000 long-term capital gain.

b. Oriole Corporation has a recognized long-term capital gain of $700,000 on the

distribution. Under § 336(b), when property distributed in a complete liquidation
is subject to a liability of the liquidating corporation, the fair market value of that
property is treated as not being less than the amount of the liability. Thus, the
$300,000 adjusted basis in the land is subtracted from the $1 million liability for a
gain of $700,000.

Example 3 and Chapter 16

17. A loss of $20,000 is recognized. Because the fair market value of the land exceeded its
basis at the time of the § 351 exchange, the built-in loss limitation does not apply.
Further, the related-party loss limitation does not apply to a sale of property. The
realized loss of $20,000 [$280,000 (selling price) – $300,000 (carryover basis)] is,
therefore, fully recognized. pp. 19-4 to 19-7 and Figure 19-1

18. A loss of $15,000 is recognized. The land was built-in loss property when it was
acquired in the § 351 exchange. Further, the sale of the land occurred within 2 years of
the exchange; thus, a tax avoidance purpose is presumed to exist. The realized loss of
$20,000 [$280,000 (selling price) – $300,000 (carryover basis)] is disallowed to the
extent of the $5,000 built-in loss [$295,000 (fair market value) – $300,000 (basis)].
Therefore, the recognized loss is $15,000 ($20,000 – $5,000). The 2-year presumption
rule can be overcome and all of the loss recognized if there is a clear and substantial
business relationship between the contributed land and Gray’s business. The related-
party loss limitation does not apply to a sale of property. Example 8 and Figure 19-1

19. No loss is recognized. The land is disqualified property that is distributed to a related
party (both Arnold and Beatrice are considered 100% shareholders under the § 267
attribution rules). Thus, the related-party loss limitation applies and none of the realized
loss of $20,000 [$280,000 (fair market value) – $300,000 (carryover basis)] is
recognized. Example 7 and Figure 19-1

20. a. If Pink Corporation distributes all the land to Maria, none of the $1,200,000 loss
realized [$600,000 (fair market value) – $1,800,000 (basis)] on the distribution
will be recognized since Maria is a related party and the land is disqualified
property.

b. If all the land is distributed to Paul, Pink Corporation will have a recognized loss
of $1,200,000. The land was valued at more than its basis on the date of the
19-8 2004 Comprehensive Volume/Solutions Manual

transfer to Pink; thus, the built-in loss limitation does not apply. Because Paul is
an unrelated party, the related-party loss limitation does not apply.

c. Even though the distribution is pro rata, the property is disqualified property;
thus, the loss on the distribution to Maria, a related party, would be disallowed.
Of the $1,200,000 loss, 20% (Paul’s interest), or $240,000, would be allowed.
For the reasons noted in option b. above, the loss limitations do not apply to the
distribution to Paul.

d. In this case, 50% of the $1,200,000 realized loss, or $600,000, would be

disallowed. The property is disqualified property; thus, the loss on the
distribution to Maria, a related party, would be disallowed. The remaining
$600,000 loss will be recognized. For the reasons noted in option b. above, the
loss limitations do not apply to the distribution to Paul.

e. Because the property does not have a built-in loss on the date of the transfer to the
corporation, the built-in loss limitation does not apply. Further, the related-party
loss limitation does not apply to a sale of property. Upon the sale, Pink
Corporation would recognize the entire $1,200,000 loss.

Pink Corporation should either distribute the land to Paul (option b.) or sell it and
distribute the cash (option e.).

pp. 19-4 to 19-7 and Figure 19-1

21. a. The answer would not change. The land is disqualified property that is
distributed to a related party; thus, the entire $1,200,000 loss realized is
disallowed under the related-party loss limitation.

b. The property had a built-in loss of $300,000 [$1,500,000 (fair market value) –
$1,800,000 (basis)] when it was transferred to Pink Corporation. Further, the
transfer occurred within 2 years of the date the plan of liquidation was adopted.
Unless Pink can rebut the presumption of a tax avoidance purpose for the transfer,
the built-in loss of $300,000 is disallowed. The remaining $900,000 loss will be
recognized. Because Paul is an unrelated party, the related-party loss limitation
does not apply to a distribution to him. If Pink Corporation can establish a
business reason for the transfer of the property to the corporation and rebut the
2-year presumption rule, the entire $1,200,000 loss would be recognized.

c. The loss on the property distributed to Maria, or $960,000, will be disallowed

entirely because it is a distribution of disqualified property to a related party.
Unless Pink Corporation can rebut the presumption of a tax avoidance purpose for
the transfer, an additional $60,000 of the loss [$300,000 (built-in loss) X 20%
(Paul’s distribution)] will be disallowed. As a result, $180,000 of the loss will be
recognized [$900,000 (post-transfer loss) X 20% (Paul’s distribution)]. If Pink
Corporation can rebut the 2-year presumption rule, $240,000 of loss would be
recognized [$1,200,000 (total loss) X 20% (Paul’s distribution)].

d. The loss on the distribution of disqualified property to Maria, or $600,000, will be

disallowed. Of the remaining $600,000 loss, 50% of the built-in loss of $300,000,
or $150,000, will be disallowed unless Pink Corporation can demonstrate a
business purpose for the transfer. If Pink can rebut the 2-year presumption rule,
$600,000 of the loss, or the portion pertaining to the distribution to Paul, would
be recognized.
 Corporations: Complete Liquidations and Reorganizations 19-9

e. If Pink Corporation cannot show a business purpose for the transfer, the built-in
loss of $300,000 would be disallowed. The remaining $900,000 loss would be
recognized. If Pink can rebut the 2-year presumption rule, the entire $1,200,000
loss would be recognized. The related-party loss limitation does not apply to a
sale of property.

Pink Corporation should either distribute the land to Paul (option b.) or sell it and
distribute the proceeds (option e.).

pp. 19-4 to 19-7 and Figure 19-1

22. The tax results of these transactions to Helen are as follows:

• Helen may defer gain on the receipt of the notes to the point of collection under the
installment method.

• Helen must allocate her $100,000 basis in the Purple Corporation stock between the
cash and the installment notes. Using the relative fair market value approach, 25%
[$100,000 (amount of cash) ÷ $400,000 (total distribution)] of $100,000 (basis in the
stock), or $25,000, is allocated to the cash, and 75% [$300,000 (FMV of the notes) ÷
$400,000 (total distribution)] of $100,000 (basis in the stock), or $75,000, is allocated
to the notes.

• Helen must recognize $75,000 [$100,000 (cash received) – $25,000 (basis allocated
to the cash)] in the year of the liquidation.

• Since Helen’s gross profit on the notes is $225,000 [$300,000 (FMV of notes) –
$75,000 (basis allocated to the notes)], the gross profit percentage is 75% [$225,000
(gross profit) ÷ $300,000 (FMV of notes)]. Thus, Helen must report a gain of
$45,000 [$60,000 (amount of annual payment) X 75% (gross profit percentage)] on
the collection of each note over the next five years.

• The interest element is accounted for separately.

Example 13

23. Magenta recognizes no gain on the distribution of assets to Fuchsia, its parent
corporation. The land distribution to Marta results in a $25,000 nonrecognized loss
[$50,000 (fair market value) – $75,000 (basis)] to Magenta.

Fuchsia recognizes no gain or loss in the liquidation, and it has a carryover basis of
$620,000 in the assets received. Magenta’s tax attributes (e.g., E & P) carry over to
Fuchsia. Fuchsia’s basis in the Magenta stock disappears.

Marta recognizes a $20,000 gain [$50,000 (amount realized) – $30,000 (basis of stock)]
in the liquidation, and she has a basis in the land of $50,000.

Concept Summary 19-1

24. Green Corporation recognizes no loss on the transfer of the land to satisfy its
indebtedness to Orange Corporation. Transfers by a subsidiary corporation pursuant to a
§ 332 liquidation are subject to the nonrecognition rules of § 337. Orange Corporation,
however, must recognize a gain of $30,000 [$600,000 (fair market value of the land) –
$570,000 (basis in the bonds)]. Examples 15 and 16
19-10 2004 Comprehensive Volume/Solutions Manual

25. a. Wren Corporation recognizes no gain (or loss) on its liquidation under § 337.
The liquidation meets the requirements of § 332. (Since the Wren stock was
acquired three years ago, a § 338 election is not available to Cardinal.)

b. Cardinal Corporation recognizes no gain (or loss) on the liquidation under § 332.

c. Cardinal Corporation takes a carryover basis in the assets, or $900,000.

Cardinal’s basis in the Wren stock disappears.

d. Cardinal Corporation acquires Wren Corporation’s E & P of $500,000 and net

operating loss carryover of $120,000 under § 381.

pp. 19-10 and 19-12

26. Willis, Hoffman, Maloney, and Raabe, CPAs

5191 Natorp Boulevard
Mason, OH 45040

October 13, 2003

Quail Corporation
1010 Cypress Lane
Community, MN 55166

Dear President of Quail Corporation:

This letter is in response to your question as to the tax consequences to Quail Corporation
if it liquidates its wholly owned subsidiary, Sparrow Corporation. Our conclusion is
based on the facts as outlined in your October 5 letter. Any change in facts may cause
our conclusion to be inaccurate.

Because Sparrow Corporation is insolvent (its liabilities exceed the value of its assets),
Quail Corporation would have an ordinary loss deduction for its worthless stock in
Sparrow Corporation. The loss to Quail would be measured by the fair market value of
Sparrow’s net assets less Quail’s basis in the Sparrow stock.

Should you need additional information or need to clarify our conclusion, do not hesitate
to call on me.

Sincerely,

Larry C. Williams, CPA

Partner

TAX FILE MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 8, 2003

FROM: Larry C. Williams

SUBJECT: Quail Corporation

 Corporations: Complete Liquidations and Reorganizations 19-11

Today I talked to the President of Quail Corporation with respect to his October 5 letter.
Quail Corporation is considering liquidating its wholly owned subsidiary Sparrow
Corporation and wants to know the tax consequences upon a liquidation of Sparrow
Corporation.

At issue: What are the tax consequences of a liquidation of a wholly owned subsidiary
when the subsidiary is insolvent?

Conclusion: Because Sparrow Corporation is insolvent, § 332 would not apply to the
liquidation. Quail Corporation would have an ordinary loss deduction for its worthless
stock in Sparrow Corporation under § 165(g)(3).

p. 19-10 and Chapter 17

27. a. Because Canary purchased 80% or more of Falcon’s stock within a 12-month
period, it could make a § 338 election. Since the qualified stock purchase date
was January 1, 2003, the § 338 election must be made by October 15, 2003. If
made, the election is irrevocable. p. 19-13

b. Canary Corporation should not elect § 338. If § 338 is elected, Falcon’s assets
(regardless of whether Falcon Corporation is liquidated) would receive a stepped-
down basis. Falcon Corporation would recognize a loss on the deemed sale of its
assets; however, the loss probably could not be utilized since Falcon undoubtedly
has had tax losses, rather than taxable income, in the past. Further, since Falcon
would be treated as a new corporation as a result of the § 338 election, any loss
carryovers (e.g., NOL) would disappear. pp. 19-12 to 19-15

28. Kamiak realizes a gain on the transaction of $80,000 computed as follows. $120,000
stock + $30,000 cash – $70,000 basis = $80,000 realized gain. Kamiak recognizes gain
to the extent of the $30,000 cash received. Of this gain, $20,000 is taxed as a dividend
[($200,000 E & P) X (10% ownership interest)] and $10,000 is treated as capital
gain. This transaction will not qualify as a stock redemption under § 302(b)(2)
because the ownership does not change by more than 20% when the cash is
distributed. If Kamiak had received all stock ($150,000) in the reorganization, he
would have received 5% of Bear Corporation. A decline from 5% to 4% due to
the cash distribution of $30,000 is not more than a 20% decrease in ownership.
pp. 19-18 and 19-19 and Example 22

29. a. Quinn recognizes gain to the extent he receives boot in the exchange. For the
stock, Quinn has a basis of $100,000 with a fair market value of $300,000
($280,000 + $20,000); thus, his realized gain is $200,000. He recognizes gain to
the extent of the value of the land (boot) or $20,000. Since Quinn’s proportionate
share of Redbird’s earnings and profits is greater than $20,000 (20% X $150,000
= $30,000), his gain is ordinary dividend income. Quinn’s gain on the bond is
equal to the principal amount of the bond received less the debt principal
relinquished, in this case, $10,000 ($60,000 – $50,000). Assuming no interest in
arrears, the bond gain is capital. Thus, Quinn’s basis in his stock is $100,000, the
bond is $60,000, and his basis in the land is $20,000.
b. Since Redbird distributes all stock and assets it received in exchange for its
assets, Redbird recognized no gain on the reorganization. Bluebird’s basis in
Redbird’s assets is a carryover basis of $900,000.
pp. 19-18 and 19-19
19-12 2004 Comprehensive Volume/Solutions Manual

30. a. Rosa Arvid

Basis of stock in Pine $60,000 $190,000
Plus: gain recognized 20,000
Less: boot received (20,000) (35,000)
Basis of stock in Lodgepole $60,000 $155,000

Concept Summary 19-3

Thus, Arvid’s basis in the new stock is $155,000, and his basis in the land is
$35,000. Rosa’s basis in the new stock is $60,000.
b. Rosa recognizes gain to the extent of cash she received ($20,000). The gain will
be a dividend to the extent of her proportionate share of Pine’s E & P. The
distribution will not qualify as a redemption under § 302(b)(2). Rosa’s ownership
if she received all stock would have been 23% ($120,000/$520,000). Her
ownership after receiving the $20,000 of cash is 20% ($100,000/$500,000).
Rosa’s ownership did not decrease by more than 20% (3% ÷ 23% = 13%). Arvid
has a realized loss of $10,000 that is not recognized. Pine Corporation recognizes
a gain of $25,000 on the distribution of the land to Arvid computed as: $35,000
FMV – $10,000 basis = $25,000 gain. Lodgepole recognizes no gain or loss on
the reorganization.

Concept Summary 19-2 and Examples 23 and 24