Seda v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
82 T.C. 484 (1984)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Mr. and Mrs. Seda (plaintiffs) owned B & B Supply Company (the company). Mr. Seda was the president and chairman of the board, and Mrs. Seda was a director, vice president, and secretary. By 1959 the Sedas owned all 23,920 shares of the company’s stock. In 1979 the Sedas’ son, James L. Seda, took control of the company. The Sedas resigned from their positions and terminated their ownership of the company. The company redeemed the stock owned by the Sedas at $12.50 per share, for a total of $299,000. The company also issued 1,000 shares of stock to James for $1,000. Mr. Seda continued to work for the company at a salary of $1,000 per month for two years after the redemption. The Sedas reported the money they received from the stock redemption as a long-term capital gain. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) assessed a deficiency against the Sedas. The Commissioner reasoned that because Mr. Seda continued to work for the company after the stock redemption, the stock in the company owned by James was constructively owned by Mr. Seda, and the redemption was not a complete redemption. As a result, the money received from the redemption was a dividend that should have been taxed as ordinary income. The Sedas appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fay, J.)
Concurrence (Whitaker, 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.