Kohler v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
92 T.C.M. (CCH) 48 (2006)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
The Kohler family and its affiliates owned approximately 96 percent of the outstanding stock of the Kohler Company. The family wished to consolidate all ownership within the family and began structuring a reorganization to remove the outside shareholders. In addition to removing the outside shareholders, the reorganization would impose transfer restrictions on the post-reorganization shares. While the family was planning this reorganization, Frederic Kohler, who held a large number of shares, died. Less than six months later, the reorganization was completed, and Kohler’s shares, which were now held by his estate, were exchanged for new shares pursuant to the plan of reorganization. The reorganization qualified for tax-free treatment. The representative of Kohler’s estate (plaintiff) elected to have the estate valued at a date six months after the date of Kohler’s death. The representative valued the shares held by the estate in their post-reorganization form. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) valued the shares as of the date of the reorganization in their pre-reorganization form. Because the pre-reorganization shares were not subject to the new transfer restrictions, the IRS’s valuation was substantially higher than that of the estate, and the IRS assessed a deficiency against the estate. The representative of Kohler’s estate sued in tax court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kroupa, 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.