Bercy Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
70 T.C.29 (1978)

- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
In 1965, Bercy was incorporated. One year later, Bercy changed its name to Bercy Industries, Inc. (Old Bercy). In 1968, Beverly Manor, Inc. was incorporated. Beverly Manor was a shell corporation that did not have its own business operations. Beverly Enterprises (Beverly) was Beverly Manor’s sole shareholder. In 1970, Beverly, Beverly Manor, Old Bercy, and the shareholders of Old Bercy planned and agreed to a reorganization in which Old Bercy merged with Beverly Manor. Beverly Manor was the surviving corporation that changed its name to Bercy Industries, Inc. (New Bercy). The shareholders of Old Bercy received 171,429 shares of Beverly voting common stock as the only consideration for the merger. The shares of Old Bercy were canceled on the merger date. On its tax returns, New Bercy argued that the acquisition qualified as a (B) subsidiary reverse-merger reorganization and that net operating losses could be carried back to the prior tax years of a target acquired through an asset reorganization. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) determined that the transaction did not qualify as a (B) reorganization, and, therefore, the carryback of net operating loss was prohibited. The commissioner disallowed the loss deduction. New Bercy filed a lawsuit in United States Tax Court and argued that New Bercy’s loss deductions of Old Bercy’s net operating losses of Old Bercy were appropriate.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sterrett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.