Countryside Limited Partnership v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
95 T.C.M. 1006 (2008)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Arthur Winn and Lawrence Curtis (collectively, the partners) (plaintiffs) held 95 percent of a real estate partnership (the partnership). After adjusting for liabilities, the partners had a zero basis in their partnership interests. The partners’ interests were liquidated and redeemed by the partnership, with the partnership issuing $12 million worth of private notes issued by AIG (the AIG notes). The AIG notes were not marketable securities, because they were not listed or traded on a financial market. The partnership hoped the redemption would qualify for nonrecognition under § 731(a) of the Internal Revenue Code based on the partners’ adjusted basis in the partnership. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) argued the AIG notes were marketable securities under § 731(c), which would trigger tax liability for $12 million in gain. To support his argument, the Commissioner cited § 731(c)(2)(A), which explained that any financial instrument that was readily convertible into money or marketable securities would be considered a marketable security for the purposes of § 731(c). Further, the Commissioner cited Treasury Regulation 1.731-2(h) (the treasury regulation), which provided that the Commissioner may reclassify transactions that are intended to achieve tax results inconsistent with § 731(c). The treasury regulation provided three examples of transactions in which a partnership distributed rights to purportedly nonmarketable securities to avoid tax liabilities under § 731(c). Two of the examples involved distributions of partnership assets, excluding marketable securities, to partners, and the third involved a change in partnership allocations with respect to marketable securities. The partners petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination, arguing that the AIG notes were not marketable securities and were not distributed as part of a tax-avoidance scheme.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Halpern, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 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.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New
Understand your casebook readings in seconds
Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.
Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.

