Casco Products Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
United States Tax Court
49 T.C. 32 (1967)
Facts
Casco Products Corporation (Old Casco), a Connecticut corporation, received a public tender offer from Standard Kollsman Industries, Inc. (Standard) to purchase all outstanding shares. Standard acquired 91 percent of the outstanding shares, but the remaining minority shareholders refused to sell. In order to obtain the remaining shares, Standard incorporated SKO, Inc. in Connecticut. Old Casco and SKO then entered into a squeeze-out merger agreement; SKO conducted no business before the merger. Old Casco merged into SKO, which changed its name to Casco Products Corporation (New Casco) (plaintiff). The shares of the minority shareholders were cancelled, and a distribution was made to the shareholders. New Casco operated in the same manner as Old Casco but was wholly owned by Standard. New Casco applied loss carryback from the 1961 calendar year to the income tax returns of Old Casco for 1959 and 1960. The commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (defendant) disallowed the loss carryback, contending that the merger was a reorganization that did not qualify under § 368(a)(1)(F) of the Internal Revenue Code for a loss carryback. New Casco appealed this decision to the United States Tax Court, contending that Old Casco and New Casco were the same entity due to continuity of business enterprise and proprietary interest and, in the alternative, that the transaction was a reorganization under § 368(a)(1)(F).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tannenwald, J.)
Dissent (Scott, J.)
Dissent (Raum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.