William H. Bateman v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
40 T.C. 408 (1963)
- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
In March 1958, as part of a corporate reorganization, William Bateman (plaintiff) received common stock and common stock warrants of the Symington Wayne Corporation (Symington) in exchange for Bateman’s common stock of the Wayne Pump Company (Wayne Pump). Later in 1958, Bateman sold 4,000 of his Symington common stock warrants. On Bateman’s 1958 income tax return, he did not report a taxable gain on the exchange of his Wayne Pump stock for the Symington stock and common stock warrants. Additionally, Bateman reported a long-term capital gain on the sale of the Symington common stock warrants. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) determined that a gain from the acquisition of the common stock warrants must be recognized because common stock warrants are not the same as stock. The commissioner concluded that the common stock warrants must be considered dividends and taxed as ordinary income. The commissioner identified a deficiency in Bateman’s income tax of over $11,000. Bateman filed a lawsuit in United States Tax Court contesting the deficiency. Bateman argued that the stock warrants were stock, and, therefore, no gain must be recognized. Alternatively, Bateman argued that even if a taxable gain was recognized, the gain must be taxed as a long-term capital gain.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scott, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
