Corporations: Earnings & Profits and Dividend Distributions Solutions To Problem Material

CHAPTER 10
CORPORATIONS: EARNINGS & PROFITS

AND DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTIONS
SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEM MATERIAL
Question/
Problem
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Topic
Status:
Present
Edition
Amount of dividend income

Modified
Amount of taxable income; balance in E & P Unchanged
Ethics problem
Unchanged
Deficit in E & P followed by sale on
Unchanged
installment method; taxation of dividend
distribution
Issue recognition
Unchanged
Amount of dividend income; deficit in current Modified
E & P with positive balance in accumulated
E&P
Cash distributions; determination of taxable
Unchanged
amount
Modified
amount; gain on sale of stock
Unchanged
amount
Effect of selected transactions in adjusting
Unchanged
taxable income (for determining E & P)
Effect of specified transactions on taxable
Unchanged
income; on E & P
New
income; on E & P
Tax treatment to shareholder and to
Modified
corporation on distribution of property
subject to liability in excess of basis
Tax treatment to corporate shareholder and to Unchanged
distributing corporation of property subject
to a liability
Q/P
in Prior
Edition
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
Corporations:E&PandDividendDistributions
102
10-1
Question/
Problem
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Topic
Status:
Present
Edition
Q/P
in Prior
Edition
Taxation of dividend when E & P has positive

balance but corporation has current loss
Property distribution; taxation to shareholder
and to corporation
Property distribution where FMV is less than
adjusted basis
Issue recognition
Selected factors in determining reasonableness
of compensation
Constructive dividends
Property dividend; liability assumed by shareholder; determination of E & P;
distribution of loss property
Property distribution to corporate
shareholder; basis in excess of FMV;
liability assumed by shareholder
income; on E & P
Dividend distribution; effect on E & P
Interest free loan to shareholder
Basis of nontaxable preferred stock dividend
Stock dividend; basis allocation; gain on sale
Stock rights; basis allocation; gain on sale
How to structure a dividend payment
Source of dividend distribution
Unchanged
15
Unchanged
16
Unchanged
17
Unchanged
Unchanged
18
19
Unchanged
Modified
20
21
Unchanged
22
Unchanged
23
Unchanged
New
New
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
24
Earnings and profits and tax evasion

Repayment of unreasonable compensation
Dividend in anticipation of corporate sale
Corporate deduction of luxury auto &
constructive dividend to shareholder
Internet activity
Internet activity
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
New
1
2
3
Unchanged
New
27
28
30
31
32
33
Research
Problem
1
2
3
4
5
6
103
PROBLEM MATERIAL
1.
Sylvia and Jerry have ordinary dividend income of $65,000 each [$100,000 (Egret
Corporations accumulated E & P) + $30,000 (Egret Corporations current E & P) 2]. The
remaining $10,000 of the $140,000 distribution reduces the basis (up to $5,000 each) in the
shareholders stock in Egret Corporation with any excess treated as a capital gain. Sylvia
reduces her basis from $24,000 to $19,000. Jerry has a reduction in stock basis from $4,000
to zero and a capital gain of $1,000. pp. 10-2, 10-3, and Example 1
2.
a.
Vireo reports $300,000 dividends as taxable income but has a dividends received
deduction under 243 of $210,000 (70% X $300,000). None of the other items affect
taxable income. Thus, there is a net increase of $90,000 (as a result of the dividends
and associated dividends received deduction), or a taxable income of $315,000.
b.
Vireo Corporations E & P as of December 31 is $630,000, computed as follows:

$80,000 (beginning balance in E & P) + $315,000 (taxable income) + $210,000
(dividends received deduction) + $50,000 (tax-exempt interest) - $25,000 (interest on
indebtedness to purchase tax-exempt bonds).
pp. 10-4 to 10-7

3.
Playing Games with the Statute of Limitations (page 4-21). Steve is courting disaster, and he
could not convert capital gains to ordinary income. An obscure set of Code provisions
( 1311-1314) serves to mitigate the effect of the statute of limitations. Based on the
concept of equity, these provisions preclude both the IRS and taxpayers from taking current
advantage of past errors, the correction of which is no longer possible. These provisions
would permit the IRS to reopen tax year 1993 and assess against Steve the tax he would have
paid had he properly reported the dividend income.
On the other hand, if Steve stays with the basis reduction he originally made, he has not
taken an inconsistent position. Therefore, 1311-13114 cannot be used by the IRS. pp. 102 and 10-3
4.
Nick reports the entire $200,000 as a taxable dividend. The $1,350,000 gain on the sale of
the land increases E & P by that amount. Thus, the balance in E & P prior to the $200,000
distribution is $1,080,000 [$1,350,000 (gain) - $90,000 (deficit) - $180,000 (tax loss)]. There
is adequate E & P; thus, the entire distribution is a dividend. (If the deficit were sufficient to
eliminate E & P, the distribution would still be a dividend because current E & P would be
sufficient to cause the entire distribution to be a taxable dividend.) pp. 10-4, 10-5, and
Example 6
5.
Is the distribution from corporate earnings?
Is the distribution in partial or complete liquidation of Yellow Corporation?
Does the distribution qualify as a stock redemption for tax purposes?
What is the tax basis of each of the shareholder's stock investment in Yellow
Corporation?
What is the E & P of Yellow Corporation?
10-4
2001 Entities Volume/Solutions Manual
Has corporate E & P been determined accurately for tax purposes?
How will the distribution affect E & P for Yellow Corporation?
Another factor that is important is the nature of the shareholder. In the case of a corporate
shareholder (Maize Corporation in this situation), dividend treatment would be preferable to
a capital gain result since the dividends received deduction is available to corporate
shareholders.
pp. 10-2 to 10-10
6.
Dividend income is $50,000 and $150,000 is a return of capital, of which $135,000 is taxed
as a capital gain. To determine the amount of dividend income, the balances of both
accumulated and current E & P as of September 30 must be netted because of the deficit in
current E & P. Three-quarters of the loss, or $300,000, is deemed to have occurred by
September 30; thus, the $350,000 in accumulated E & P is reduced by $300,000. The
$50,000 balance remaining in E & P triggers dividend income. p. 10-10 and Example 11
7.
Amount
Taxable
Return of
Capital
a.
$ 70,000
$80,000
Accumulated E & P and current E & P are netted

on the date of distribution. There is a dividend
to the extent of any positive balance.
b.
$ 40,000
$50,000
Taxed to the extent of current E & P.
c.
$220,000
$ -0-
Taxed to the extent of current and accumulated

E & P.
d.
$ 80,000
$40,000
Accumulated E & P and current E & P netted on

date of distribution.
e.
$110,000
$10,000
When the result in current E & P is a deficit for

the year, the deficit is allocated on a pro rata basis
to distributions made during the year. On June 30,
E & P is $110,000 [current E & P is a deficit of
$30,000 (i.e., 1/2 of $60,000) netted with
accumulated E & P of $140,000].
pp. 10-7 to 10-10

8.
Amount
Taxable
Capital
Gain
a.
$120,000
$10,000
Taxed to the extent of current E & P. Capital gain to

extent distribution exceeds E & P plus stock basis.
b.
$100,000
$ -0-
Taxed to the extent of current and accumulated E & P.
c.
$ 70,000
$ -0-
Taxed to the extent of current E & P.
105
d.
$ 50,000
$20,000
Accumulated E & P and current E & P are netted on the

date of distribution. There is a dividend to the extent of
any positive balance.
e.
$ 90,000
$ -0-
When the result in current E & P is a deficit for the

year, such deficit is allocated on a pro rata basis to
distributions made during the year. Thus, on June
30, current E & P is a deficit of $80,000 (i.e., 1/2 of
$160,000). This is netted with accumulated E & P of
$210,000 to cause all of the distribution to be taxed.
pp. 10-7 to 10-10

9.
The $80,000 in current E & P is allocated on a pro rata basis to the two distributions made
during the year; thus, $40,000 of current E & P is allocated to Carrie Lynns distribution and
$40,000 is allocated to Rajibs distribution. Accumulated E & P is applied in chronological
order beginning with the earliest distribution. Thus, the entire $95,000 is allocated to Carrie
Lynns distribution. As a result, the distribution of $150,000 to Carrie Lynn on July 1 is
taxed as dividend income to the extent of $135,000 ($95,000 AEP + $40,000 current E & P
for of the year). The remaining $15,000 reduces the basis in Carrie Lynns stock to
$35,000. Carrie Lynn then recognizes a capital gain of $165,000 on the sale of the stock
[$200,000 (selling price) - $35,000 (remaining basis in the stock)]. The distribution to Rajib
of $150,000 is a taxable dividend of $40,000 and a $110,000 reduction in his stock basis.
Thus, Rajibs basis in the Junco stock is $90,000 [$200,000 (original cost) - $110,000
(reduction in basis from the distribution)]. pp. 10-7 to 10-10
10.
a.
Wren Corporation's taxable income for 2000 is reduced by the amount of gain reported
on the collection of the note receivable in determining Wren Corporation's E & P.
Wren Corporation's E & P for 1999 would have been increased for the entire amount
of the deferred gain on the installment sale; thus, E & P for 2000 should not include
any gain attributable to the sale in 1999.
b.
Wren Corporation's taxable income for 2000 is increased by the amount of the
charitable contribution carryover in determining Wren Corporation's E & P for 2000.
The excess charitable contributions would have reduced E & P in 1999; so there is no
need for further reduction in 2000.
c.
Wren Corporation's taxable income is reduced by the excess capital loss in determining
its E & P. The excess capital loss that cannot be utilized in computing Wren
Corporation's taxable income is nonetheless a reduction in its E & P account for the
year.
d.
GainsandlossesfrompropertytransactionsaffectthedeterminationofE&Ponlyto
theextentthattheyarerecognizedfortaxpurposes.Thus,thedeferredgainwould
alsobedeferredforpurposesofE&Pandnoadjustmenttotaxableincomewouldbe
necessary.
e.
Wren Corporation's taxable income for 2000 is reduced by the excess charitable
contribution deduction in computing its E & P for 2000.
10-6

f.
Wren Corporations taxable income for 2000 is increased by 80 percent of the 179
expense elected (only 20 percent is allowed for E & P purposes). The expense must
be spread over five years for E & P purposes.
p. 10-7
11.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Taxable Income
Increase (Decrease)
E&P
Increase (Decrease)
No effect
No effect
No effect
($ 20,000)
($ 10,000)
$ 30,000
$ 15,000
($ 15,150)
$ 100,000
($ 10,000)
$ 10,000
$
-0-
107
Note: The deduction of the remaining $10,000 charitable contribution in e. is an increase in

E & P because taxable income was reduced by that amount while E & P was reduced in the
prior year for the additional contribution. E & P is not increased in f. because the $30,000
has already been included in taxable income. The realized gain is not an increase in E & P,
only the recognized gain which is included in taxable income. E & P is decreased only
$10,000 in d. because the additional $20,000 was already included in taxable income.
Concept Summary 10-1
12.
Taxable Income
Increase (Decrease)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
No effect
($30,000)
$50,000
$ 3,000
No effect
($12,000)
No effect
($80,000)
No effect
E&P
Increase (Decrease)
($ 40,000) *
$ 26,000 **
$150,000
$ 7,000 ***
No effect
$ 9,600
($ 2,400)
$ 30,000
$ 60,000
While the related party loss is not deductible under the income tax, it must be
subtracted from E & P.
**
Although intangible drilling costs are deductible in full under the income tax, they
must be amortized over 60 months when computing E & P. Since $500 per month is
amortizable ($30,000/60 months), $4,000 is currently deductible for E & P purposes
($500 X 8 months). Thus, of the $30,000 income tax deduction, $26,000 must be
added back to E & P ($30,000 - $4,000 deduction allowed).
***
The receipt of a $10,000 dividend will generate a dividends received deduction of

$7,000. The net effect on taxable income is an increase of $3,000. For E & P
purposes, the dividends received deduction must be added back.
Only 20% of current-year 179 expense is allowed for purposes of E & P. Thus,
80% of the amount deducted for income tax purposes is added back.
In each of the four succeeding years, 20% of the 179 expense is allowed as a
deduction for E & P purposes.
10-8
Only ADS straight-line depreciation reduces E & P; thus, E & P is increased by

$30,000, which is the excess of MACRS depreciation taken over the amount allowed
under ADS.
Concept Summary 10-1

13.
a.
Vireo has a gain of $75,000 on the distribution, computed as follows: $195,000

(liability on the property exceeds fair market value) - $120,000 (basis of the
property). Vireos E & P is increased by the $75,000 gain. In addition, E & P is
decreased by $195,000 (representing the deemed fair market value of the property),
less the $195,000 liability on the property, or zero. Thus, E & P is $285,000,
computed as follows: $210,000 (beginning E & P balance) + $75,000 (gain on
distribution).
b.
Pete has dividend income of zero, computed as follows: $195,000 (value of the
property based on liability) - $195,000 (liability on the property). Pete has a basis of
$195,000 in the property.
pp. 10-11 to 10-14

14.
a.
Dividend income to Orca is $80,000 [$110,000 (fair market value of the property) $30,000 (liability assumed)]. The amount taxed to Orca is reduced by the dividends
received deduction.
b.
Orcas basis in the property is $110,000.
c.
The distribution reduces Penguins E & P account by $120,000 [$150,000 (adjusted

basis of the property) - $30,000 (liability assumed by Orca)].
pp. 10-11 to 10-14

15.
To determine the taxability of the $35,000 distribution, the balance of both accumulated and
current E & P as of July 1 must be determined and netted. This is necessary because of the
deficit in current E & P. One-half of the $30,000 loss, or $15,000, reduces E & P to $25,000
as of July 1 ($40,000 - $15,000). Thus, of the $35,000 distribution, $25,000 is taxed as a
dividend and $10,000 represents a return of capital. p. 10-10 and Example 11
16.
Crossbill Corporation recognizes a gain of $140,000 on the distribution. Crossbills E &

P is reduced by $145,000 [$180,000 (fair market value) - $35,000 (liability)]. Janel has a
taxable dividend of $145,000 [$180,000 (fair market value) - $35,000 (liability)]. The basis
of the equipment to Janel is $180,000. pp. 10-11 to 10-14
17.
Homer has a taxable dividend of $60,000 and a basis in the land of $60,000. Gold
Corporation does not recognize a loss on the distribution. Golds E & P is reduced by
$100,000. pp. 10-11 to 10-14
18.
What basis do Cybil and Sally have in their stock in Copper Corporation after their
initial transfers for stock?
Does Sallys transfer qualify under 351 of the Code as a nontaxable exchange?
How is Copper Corporation taxed on the property distribution to Cybil?
How do the distributions to Cybil and to Sally affect Coppers E & P?
How will Cybil and Sally be taxed on the distributions?
What is Cybils basis in her stock when she sells it to Dana?
How are Cybil and Dana taxed on the $80,000 distribution to each?
109
pp. 10-2 to 10-10

19.
20.
a.
The determination of the reasonableness of compensation paid to an employee who is

not a shareholder but is related to the sole owner of the corporate-employer should be
made in the same manner as that for salary paid the shareholder-employee. The degree
of relationship between the sole owner of the corporation and the employee should be
considered initially to determine if, in essence, the salary could be considered as having
been paid to the owner. If so, the same factors used to determine the reasonableness of
that paid to the owner should be used to determine the reasonableness of that paid to
the related employee.
b.
That the employee-shareholder never completed high school should be relevant only
with respect to the nature and scope of the employee's work. Is education beyond high
school required for the type of work performed by the employee-shareholder and the
salary received for such work?
c.
The fact that the employee-shareholder is a full-time college student might well cause
any salary paid to be deemed excessive.
d.
If the employee-shareholder was underpaid during the formative period of the

corporation, this is evidence of reasonableness of the compensation if a portion thereof
is for service rendered in prior years.
e.
If a corporation has substantial E & P and pays only a nominal dividend each year, a
constructive dividend may be found.
f.
Year-end bonuses would be vulnerable to constructive dividend treatment, particularly

if they are related to profit for the year, are paid only to shareholder-employees, and are
determined at year-end on an arbitrary basis. pp. 10-15 and 10-16
a.
The result of this transaction is, in effect, a realized loss of $7,000 (the difference
between basis of $30,000 and fair market value of $23,000) and a constructive
dividend of $8,000 (the difference between the $23,000 fair market value and the
$15,000 paid for the lot). Due to the application of 267, Emu cannot recognize the
10-10

realized loss. However, the loss does reduce Emus E & P. The constructive dividend
also reduces E & P. Thus, E & P is reduced by $15,000 (the sum of the $7,000
disallowed loss and the $8,000 constructive dividend).
21.
b.
The loan to Cameron will generate imputed interest since no interest was charged. The
amount of imputed interest will be $11,275 [($110,000 X 10% X year) +
($115,500 X 10% X year)]. This amount will be deemed paid as interest from
Cameron to the corporation. The deductibility of the interest by Cameron will depend
upon how the loan proceeds are used. Emu will have taxable interest income of
$11,275. Finally, Emu will be deemed to pay a dividend to Cameron equal to the
amount of interest. Emus E & P will be increased by the amount of interest income
and reduced by the amount of deemed dividend payment.
c.
Bargain rentals create constructive dividends to shareholders. In the present case, the
amount of constructive dividend to both Cameron and Connor equals the fair rental
value of the cottage. Thus, both shareholders will receive dividend income of $7,000
($3,500 X 2 weeks) and Emus E & P will be reduced by the same amount.
d.
The $5,000 excess amount ($12,000 - $7,000) paid to Cameron by Emu over the fair
rental value of the truck will be treated as a constructive dividend, taxable to Cameron.
The dividend will also reduce Emus E & P. pp. 10-15 to 10-17
a.
Taxable income to Lea is $20,000 [$100,000 (value of the property) - $80,000

(liability)].
b.
Corporate E & P after the distribution is $77,350, computed as follows:

Beginning E & P
Add:
Taxable income
$320,000
Proceeds of term life insurance
46,400
Subtract:
Federal income tax
(108,050)
Life insurance premiums
(2,000)
Property distribution
(220,000) *
Prior year installment sale income (10,000)
E & P of Plover after the distribution
*
$51,000
26,350
$77,350
E&Pisreducedbythegreaterofthefairmarketvalue($100,000)oradjusted
basisoftheproperty($300,000),lesstheamountofliabilityontheproperty
($80,000).
c.
The tax basis of the property to Lea is $100,000.
d.
If Plover had sold the business property at its $100,000 fair market value, it would
have recognized a loss of $200,000. This loss would offset $200,000 of taxable
income in the current year, creating Federal tax savings of $78,000 ($200,000 X
0.39). After paying off the $80,000 loan, Plover would have a total of $98,000 to
distribute to Lea [$78,000 (tax savings) + $100,000 (sales proceeds) - $80,000 (loan
balance)]. Immediately following the property sale, Plovers E & P balance would be:
Beginning E & P
$51,000
1011
Add:
Taxable income
$120,000
Proceeds of term life insurance
46,400
Subtract:
Life insurance premiums
(2,000)
Federal income tax
(30,050)
Income from prior year installment sale (10,000)
E & P of Plover after the distribution
124,350
$175,350
Thus,Learecognizesataxabledividendof$98,000.PloversE&Pwouldbereduced
to$77,350afterthedistribution.Notethatthisresultissuperiortoadistributionofthe
propertytoLea. Inparticular,thecorporationreceivesa$200,000deduction,while
Leasincomeisonlyincreasedby$78,000.
pp. 10-2 to 10-14
22.
a.
b.
Verdigris Corporation has dividend income of $10,000 [$60,000 (fair market value of
the land) less $50,000 (liability on the land)]. The $10,000 is subject to the dividends
received deduction under 243 of $8,000, so that only $2,000 is taxed to Verdigris
Corporation. Verdigris Corporation has a basis of $60,000 in the land.
Rust Corporation may not deduct the loss on the land. Its E & P is reduced by $40,000,
the $90,000 basis of the land (which is greater than the fair market value) less the
$50,000 liability on the land.
pp. 10-11 to 10-14

23.
Taxable income:
Income from services rendered
Dividend income
Less: Salaries
Depreciation ($90,000 cost X 14.29%)
Taxable Income before dividends received deduction
$200,000
40,000
$240,000
$70,000
12,861
82,861
$157,139
Less: Dividends received deduction (70% of $40,000)

Taxable income
28,000
$129,139
Taxable income
Add:
Tax-exempt income
$20,000
Excess of MACRS depreciation over straight-line:
Straight-line is $4,500 [($90,000 cost 10) 2].
Depreciation under MACRS of $12,861 less
$4,500 straight-line
8,361
Dividends received deduction
28,000
$129,139
E & P:
Deduct:
56,361
$185,500
10-12

STCL on sale of stock
Estimated Federal income tax
E&P
$25,000
14,600
39,600
$145,900
pp. 10-4 to 10-7

24.
The shareholder has a return of capital of $40,000. The $40,000 reduces the basis in the
Bunting Corporation stock; any excess over basis is capital gain. There is no taxable dividend
because the accumulated E & P account is brought up to date on the date of the sale. On the
date of the sale, E & P is a negative $10,000 [$175,000 (beginning balance in accumulated E
& P) - $175,000 (existing deficit in current E & P from sale of the asset) - $10,000 (one-half
of $20,000 negative E & P not related to asset sale)]; thus, the $40,000 distribution
constitutes a return of capital. Generally, deficits are allocated pro rata throughout the year
unless the parties can prove otherwise. Here the shareholder can prove otherwise. (If the
$195,000 deficit in E & P were prorated throughout the year, there would have been a taxable
dividend of $40,000 because E & P would have a positive balance of $77,500 [$175,000
(beginning balance in accumulated E & P) - $97,500 (one-half the $195,000 deficit for the
year)]. p. 10-10 and Example 11
25.
The shareholder has a taxable dividend of $10,000 and a return of capital of $20,000. Becard
Corporation has no accumulated E & P at the time of the distribution. The shareholder is
taxed on the current E & P of Becard, which was only $10,000. The balance of the
distribution, $20,000, first reduces the adjusted basis of the stock in Becard Corporation. To
the extent that the $20,000 exceeds the basis in the stock, a capital gain results. pp. 10-7 ro
10-10
26.
Indigo Corporation and Lucy each have a taxable dividend of $70,000. Tanager
Corporations current E & P is $180,000; thus, the entire distribution is a taxable dividend
even though Tanager has no accumulated E & P. Indigo Corporation is entitled to a
dividends received deduction of $56,000 (80% X $70,000) because it owns more than 20%
of the stock in Tanager Corporation. Thus, Indigo is only taxed on $14,000. Because Lucy is
an individual, she pays tax on the entire dividend.
To determine Tanager Corporations accumulated E & P at the end of the year, its current E &
P ($180,000) is first reduced by the amount of the distributions ($140,000). The remaining
$40,000 is then netted against the accumulated E & P deficit of $250,000, leaving a deficit of
$210,000 as of January 1 of the following year.
pp. 10-7 to 10-10
27.
Wren Corporation is deemed to have paid a dividend to James in the amount of the imputed
interest on the loan, determined by using the Federal rate and compounded semiannually.
Thus, Wren Corporation is deemed to have paid a dividend to James in the amount of
$20,500. Although James has dividend income of $20,500, he may be permitted to offset the
income with a $20,500 deemed interest payment to Wren. Wren has deemed interest income
1013
of $20,500, but has no corresponding deduction. The deemed payment from Wren to James
is a nondeductible dividend. pp. 10-16, 10-17, and Example 23
28.
Immediately after the distribution, Hiro has $50,000 worth of Canary stock ($45,000 in
common stock and $5,000 in preferred stock). Consequently, the basis of the common stock
will equal the ratio of the common stocks fair market value to the total fair market value
times the stocks basis, or ($45,000/$50,000) X $25,000, or $22,500. Similarly, the basis of
the preferred stock will equal $2,500 [($5,000/$50,000) X $25,000]. p. 10-20 and Example
28
29.
Smith, Raabe, and Maloney, CPAs

5101 Madison Road
Cincinnati, OH 45227
February 20, 2000
Myrtle Adams
14009 Pine Street
Dover, DE 19901
Dear Ms. Adams:
This letter is in response to your question with respect to your sale of the Petrel Corporation
stock you received as a nontaxable stock dividend. Our conclusion is based upon the facts as
outlined in your February 10 letter. Any change in facts may cause our conclusion to be
inaccurate.
You paid $180,000 for 15 shares of stock in Petrel Corporation five years ago. In 1999, a
nontaxable stock dividend of 5 additional shares in Petrel Corporation was received. The 5
shares were sold in March of 2000 for $60,000. Your gain on the sale of the 5 shares is
$15,000, computed as follows: [$60,000 (selling price) - $45,000 (tax basis in the 5 new
shares)]. [The tax basis in the 5 shares is arrived at by dividing your $180,000 cost of the
original 15 shares by 20 (to include the 5 new shares). Your basis then would be $9,000 per
share ($180,000 20)]. The $15,000 gain on the sale is a long-term capital gain.
Should you need more information or need to clarify our conclusion, do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Marilyn C. Seago, CPA
Partner
10-14

February 15, 2000
TAX FILE MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Marilyn C. Seago
SUBJECT:
Myrtle Adams
Today I conferred with Myrtle Adams as to her February 10 letter. Ms. Adams paid
$180,000 for 15 shares of stock in Petrel Corporation five years ago. In November of 1999,
she received a nontaxable stock dividend of 5 additional shares in Petrel Corporation. She
sold the 5 shares in March of 2000 for $60,000. She inquires as to the gain she has on the
sale and how it is taxed.
At issue: How is the gain on the sale of shares of stock received as nontaxable stock
dividends determined and how is it taxed?
Conclusion: The shareholder's basis in the original 15 shares, $180,000, is reallocated to the
20 shares she held after the nontaxable stock dividend of 5 shares. Her basis per share after
the stock dividend is $9,000 per share ($180,000 20). Her gain on the sale of the 5 shares is
$15,000 [$60,000 (selling price) - $45,000 (basis in 5 shares)]. The gain is a long-term
capital gain even though Ms. Adams sold the shares less than a year after she received them.
The holding period of the original shares tacks on to the shares received as a nontaxable
stock dividend.
pp. 10-20 and 10-21
30.
Because the fair market value of the rights is 15% or more of the value of the old stock,
Karen must allocate her basis in the stock between the stock and the stock rights. Karen
allocates basis as follows:
Fair market value of stock: 100 shares X $80 =
Fair market value of rights: 100 rights X $20 =
$ 8,000
2,000
$10,000
Basis of stock: $3,000 X 8/10 = $2,400

Basis of rights: $3,000 X 2/10 = $ 600 = $6 per right
There is a capital gain on the sale of the rights of $510, computed as follows:
Selling price of 40 rights
Less: Basis of 40 rights (40 X $6)
Long-term capital gain
$750
(240)
$510
1015
Basis of the new stock is $3,960, computed as follows:

60 rights X $6
Additional consideration ($60 X 60)
$ 360
3,600
$3,960
Holding period of the 60 new shares begins on the date of purchase. pp. 10-21, 10-22, and
Example 29
31.
Partridge should recognize the loss as soon as possible and immediately thereafter make the
cash distribution. For example, assume these two steps took place on January 2. Because
current E & P would be a deficit, accumulated E & P would be brought up to date. At the
time of the distribution, the combined E & P balance would be zero [$300,000 (beginning
balance in E & P) - $300,000 (existing deficit in current E & P)], and the entire $180,000
would be a return of capital. Current deficits are allocated pro rata throughout the year
unless the parties can prove otherwise. Here they can. Example 12
32.

5101 Madison Road
April 15, 2000
Diver Corporation
1010 Oak Street
Oldtown, MD 20742
Dear President of Diver Corporation:
This letter is in response to your question concerning the tax consequences on the planned
distribution of $400,000 to your shareholders over the next four yours. Our conclusion is
based upon the facts as outlined in your April 1 letter. Any change in facts may cause our
conclusion to be inaccurate.
Diver Corporation has a deficit in accumulated E & P of $200,000 as of January 1, 2000.
Starting this year, Diver Corporation expects to generate annual E & P of $100,000 for the
next four years and would like to distribute this amount to its shareholders. The
corporations objective is to distribute the $400,000 over the next four years in a manner that
would provide the least amount of dividend income to its shareholders.
Diver Corporation should not make a distribution in 2000. It should then distribute $200,000
on December 31, 2001. It should again make no distribution in 2002. Then it should
distribute the remaining $200,000 on December 31, 2003. By distributing $200,000 every
other year, only half of the distribution, or $200,000, is taxed to your shareholders as
dividend income. This is because E & P for 2000 of $100,000 is netted with the deficit in
E & P of $200,000. At the end of 2000, there will be a deficit in E & P of $100,000. When a
distribution of $200,000 is made in 2001, only $100,000 of that amount is taxed as the
amount of dividend income is limited to the current E & P of $100,000. This is again the
case in 2002 and 2003. On the other hand, if $100,000 is distributed each year, your
10-16

shareholders are taxed on the entire distribution because the corporation will generate that
amount of current E & P. The deficit in E & P does not cause part of the distribution to be
nontaxable.
Should you need additional information or need to clarify our conclusion, do not hesitate to
call on me.
Sincerely yours,
Partner
April 13, 2000
TAX FILE MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Marilyn C. Seago
SUBJECT:
Diver Corporation
Today I talked to the president of Diver Corporation with respect to the April 1, 2000, letter.
Diver Corporation has a deficit in its accumulated E & P of $200,000 as of January 1, 2000.
Starting in 2000, Diver Corporation expects to generate annual E & P of $100,000 for the
next four years and would like to distribute this amount to its shareholders. Diver
Corporation wants to know how it should distribute the $100,000 over a four year period (for
a total distribution of $400,000) to provide the least amount of dividend income to its
shareholders (all individuals).
At issue: When a corporation has a deficit in accumulated E & P, is it possible to structure a
corporate distribution so that a part of the distribution will not constitute dividend income
even though current E & P is sufficient to cover the distribution?
Conclusion: Yes. If Diver Corporation distributes $100,000 annually to its shareholders, the
entire distribution constitutes dividend income because current E & P is sufficient to cover
the entire distribution. Thus, Divers shareholders have total dividend income of $400,000
over the four year period. However, if Diver Corporation does not make a distribution in
2000 or in 2002, only half of the $400,000 total distribution, or $200,000, constitutes
dividend income. This is the case because in 2000 the $100,000 current E & P is netted with
the $200,000 deficit in E & P to reduce the deficit in accumulated E & P to $100,000 as of
December 31, 2000. In 2001, when Diver Corporation distributes $200,000 to its
shareholders, only $100,000 of the distribution is dividend income. This is so because there
is a $100,000 deficit in accumulated E & P, but the distribution is taxed to the extent of
current E & P. As current E & P is only $100,000, only this amount is dividend income. The
remaining $100,000 is a return of capital to the shareholders. After the distribution in 2001,
accumulated E & P will remain a deficit of $100,000 since the distribution cannot increase a
deficit in E & P. In 2002, Diver Corporation would not make a distribution. Thus, at the end
of 2002, accumulated E & P is zero (the $100,000 deficit would be netted with the $100,000
1017
current E & P for 2002). In 2003, Diver Corporation would have current E & P of $100,000.
It would then make a distribution of $200,000 to its shareholders, but only $100,000 of the
distribution will represent dividend income. The remaining $100,000 will again be a return
of capital.
Example 13
10-18
RESEARCH PROBLEMS
1.
5101 Madison Road
November 23, 2000
Mr. Monty Davis
1212 S. Camino Seco
Tucson, AZ 85710
Dear Monty:
I am writing this letter to provide you with some information that might be relevant to the
IRSs criminal tax evasion charges against Joe and Simone Simpson. Based on my recent
telephone conversation with Joe Simpson, I understand that these charges are based on the
belief that Joe and Simone intended to evade taxes when they withdrew and hid $250,000
from Spifficar over the last several years.
Upon hearing about this situation, I reviewed my files regarding Spifficar and discovered
that, over the period in question, the corporation had a deficit in earnings and profits. It
occurred to me at that time that the money withdrawn from the corporation probably would
not be properly treated as a dividend. Instead, it might be argued that the money should be
treated as a tax-free recovery of stock basis (the Simpsons have approximately $300,000 in
stock basis; this should be more than sufficient to cover the hidden funds).
After investigating this issue further, I found three court decisions that might have some
bearing on their case. In U.S. v. DAgostino, 98-1 USTC 50,380, 81 AFTR2d 98-1923, 145
F.3d 69 (CA-2, 1998), the Second Court of Appeals reversed an unreported District Court
conviction against a husband and wife who owned two commercial laundromats through
wholly owned corporations. The facts in DAgostino are very similar to those in the current
case; over a series of years, the owners took $400,000 home from the laundromats and kept
the cash in a kitchen drawer. The money was never reported as taxable income by the
taxpayers and the IRS sought criminal tax evasion charges on the basis of evidence
suggesting that there existed a clear intent to evade. The taxpayers in the case argued that the
diverted income was corporate income received by the shareholders and that the income
should only be taxed to the extent that E & P existed. In their case, as in the current situation,
the corporation had no E & P, so the distributions would be properly treated as a nontaxable
recovery of basis. In DAgostino, the Second Court of Appeals followed the reasoning in
DiZenzo v. Commissioner, 65-2 USTC 9518, 16 AFTR2d 5107, 348 F.2d 122 (CA-2, 1965):
the lack of E & P precludes taxation to the taxpayers (to the extent of basis in the stock and
outstanding loans from shareholders). Thus, the court in DAgostino concluded that the
hidden funds could not constitute taxable income; so no evasion was possible.
1019
The decision by the Second Court of Appeals in DAgostino stands in sharp contrast to an
Eleventh Court of Appeals decision, U.S. v. Williams, 89-2 USTC 9390, 64 AFTR2d 895061, 875 F.2d 846 (CA-11, 1989). In Williams, the Eleventh Court of Appeals held that, in
criminal tax evasion cases, the government should not be required to prove that corporate
distributions are taxable. Instead, demonstrating that the shareholder has control over the
corporate funds is sufficient for criminal tax evasion statutes to apply. Notably, even though
the Second Court of Appeals was constrained to follow their decision in DiZenzo, the court
explicitly rejected the reasoning in the Williams case because it felt that decision had
eliminated proof of a tax deficiencya key requirement for criminal tax evasion in 7201.
Thus, my research indicates that the courts are divided on this issue. Given that the
Simpsons reside in the Ninth Court of Appeals, neither case appears to provide direct
precedent. While the answer to the Simpsons problem is unclear, I believe that you should
be able to make a strong argument on their behalf by following the reasoning in both
DAgostino and DiZenzo.
If you have any additional questions regarding the Simpson case, or if you require additional
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Jon S. Davis, CPA
Partner
2.
a.

5101 Madison Road
November 15, 2000

Mr. Jaime Martinez
509 Maple Street
Camden, NJ 08102
Dear Jaime:
This letter is in response to your question with respect to the IRS's disallowance of your
election to use the option set forth in 1341 in reporting your repayment, in 1999, of a bonus
your employer, Black Corporation, paid you in 1997. Our conclusion is based upon the facts
as outlined in your November 1 letter. Any change in facts may cause our conclusion to be
inaccurate.
You are the president and majority shareholder of Black Corporation. In 1997, you were paid
a salary of $50,000 and you received a year-end bonus of $200,000. Upon audit of Black
Corporation in 1997, the IRS disallowed $150,000 of the bonus paid to you as being
unreasonable. Under a repayment agreement, you reimbursed Black Corporation for the
$150,000 in 1999. You included the $150,000 on your 1997 tax return as income. You did
not deduct the repayment of the $150,000 in 1999, but rather elected the option set out in
1341(a)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code. Thus, you claimed a credit for the amount of tax
10-20

you paid on the $150,000 in 1997. The IRS disallowed your election under 1341. Because
you were in a higher tax bracket in 1997 than you were in 1999, the IRS has calculated a tax
deficiency against you for 1999.
You should challenge the tax deficiency. In our opinion, you may use the special relief
provisions of 1341, whereby you may either deduct the amount repaid ($150,000) in 1999
or you may claim a credit equal to the decrease in tax for 1997 had you not reported the
$150,000 as income in that year.
Sincerely yours,
Partner
b.
TAX FILE MEMORANDUM
November 13, 2000

FROM:
Marilyn C. Seago
SUBJECT:
Jaime Martinez
Today I talked to Jaime Martinez with respect to his November 1, 2000, letter. Jaime is the
president and major shareholder of Black Corporation. He wishes to know whether he may
elect to use the option set out in 1341(a)(5) with respect to his repayment of $150,000 of a
$200,000 bonus paid him by Black Corporation in 1997. The IRS denied the corporation a
deduction for $150,000 of the $200,000 because the IRS contended that amount was
unreasonable. Under a repayment agreement, Jaime reimbursed Black Corporation for the
$150,000 in 1999. On his 1999 tax return, Jaime deducted none of the repayment, but
elected instead the option set forth in 1341(a)(5). Thus, he claimed a credit for the amount
of tax he paid on the $150,000 when he reported it as income on his 1997 return. The IRS
did not accept the credit approach but did permit him a deduction of $150,000 for 1999.
Because Jaime was in a higher tax bracket in 1997, a deficiency resulted for 1999.
At issue: Can Jaime elect the option in 1341(a)(5) with respect to the repayment of the
$150,000 bonus in 1999 and claim a credit against his income tax in 1999 equal to the
amount of income tax he paid on the $150,000 when he reported it as income in 1997?
Conclusion: The Sixth Court of Appeals has ruled that an employee may use the special
relief provisions of 1341, whereby the taxpayer may either deduct the amount repaid in the
year of repayment or may claim a credit equal to the decrease in the year of receipt if the
repaid item is not claimed as a tax deduction in the year of repayment. Van Cleave v. U.S.,
84-2 USTC 9620, 52 AFTR2d 84-6071, 718 F.2d 193 (CA-6, 1983). Consequently, Jaime
can elect the option in 1341(a)(5).
Note: Shareholder-employees who repay excessive compensation to their corporations have
been denied deductions for the repayments when there was no agreement to reimburse the
corporation for that portion of the compensation that was disallowed as a deduction to the
1021
corporation. George L. Blanton, 46 T.C. 527 (1966). However, if the employment contract
or a corporate bylaw requires a corporate employee to return any salary deemed to be
excessive, the employee may take a deduction for the salary repayment since the employee
then has an obligation to restore the payment. Vincent E. Oswald, 49 T.C. 645 (1968).
3.
a.

5101 Madison Road
November 20, 2000

Bill Gateson
601 Pittsfield Dr.
Champaign, IL 61821
Dear Bill:
This letter is to provide you with our firms opinion regarding the likely tax consequences of
the planned distribution of $4,000,000 of cash and securities from Egret Corporation to Aqua
Corporation, followed by sale of Egret for $5,500,000. You expect the distribution to be
taxed as a dividend since it is equal to the E & P of Egret Corporation. In addition, you
expect to recognize no gain on the sale of Egret, since Aquas basis in the Egret stock equals
the projected sales price. As you indicated in our phone conversation, the purpose of this plan
is to (1) reduce the price of Egret stock, thereby facilitating a sale and (2) avoid tax on the
sale of Egret.
After much research, our firm has identified two cases that are similar to your situation. In
the first case, a distribution was made after an offer was received for the subsidiary stock. In
that situation, the court held that the dividend was, in substance, part of the sales price
received for the subsidiary. Dividend treatment was disallowed and the distribution was taxed
as a capital gain to the parent corporation.
In the second case, which more closely resembles your situation, a distribution was made to
the parent corporation in anticipation of a future sale of the subsidiary (no offer had yet been
received). In this context, since no sale was in progress, the court allowed dividend treatment
and the parent corporation had no taxable income or gain on the transaction.
Provided that you do not publicly announce your intent to sell Egret Corporation or enter into
any negotiations regarding a sale until after you make the $4,000,000 distribution, it is our
opinion that you will receive the tax treatment you desire. In particular, the distribution will
be treated as a dividend subject to the 100% dividends received deduction and no gain will be
recognized on subsequent sale of Egret.
If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely yours,
Jon S. Davis, CPA
Partner
TAX FILE MEMORANDUM
10-22

November 20, 2000
From: Jon S. Davis
Subject: Proposed distribution, followed by sale of Egret Corporation
Facts: Aqua Corporation is the sole shareholder of Egret Corporation. Aquas basis in Egret
stock is $5.5 million. Egret has E & P of $4 million. The assets of Egret consist of software
patents worth $5 million and cash and marketable securities of $4.5 million. For strategic
business reasons, Aqua is planning on selling Egret Corporation sometime in the next two
years. In anticipation of the sale, Aqua has considered two possibilities:
(1)
Sell Egret for its current fair market value of $9.5 million. This would generate a gain
on sale of $4 million.
(2)
Distribute $4 million in cash and securities to Aqua as a dividend. The dividend
would be tax free since Aqua is entitled to a 100% dividends received deduction. Then, sell
Egret for $5.5 million, resulting in no taxable gain on sale.
After considering these two possibilities, Aqua executives have decided the latter is
preferable, provided that the expected tax consequences are correct. They have contacted our
office to confirm the expected tax treatment of the distribution and subsequent sale.
At issue: Is the distribution of $4 million in cash and securities properly treated as a dividend
subject to the dividends received deduction, and is the subsequent sale of stock tax free?
Discussion: Waterman Steam Ship Corporation, 50 T.C. 650 (1968), revd by 702 USTC
9514, 26 AFTR2d 705185, 430 F.2d 1185 (CA-5, 1970) involves a similar situation. In
Waterman, a corporation received an offer to purchase the stock of its wholly-owned
subsidiary. After receiving the offer, the subsidiary paid a dividend equal to the fair market
value of the subsidiarys stock less the parent corporations adjusted basis in the stock. The
parent corporation argued that the dividend resulted in no taxable income (due to the 100%
dividends received deduction under 243(a)(3)), and no gain was recognized on the sale
since the stock was sold at its adjusted basis. The court recast the dividend as sales proceeds
and treated it as long-term capital gain using substance over form as a basis for the decision.
Several features of the current case differ from the facts in Waterman. First, there is a good
business reason for Egret to make a distribution. In particular, distributing assets currently
will reduce the corporations value, thereby lowering any future sales price; this facilitates a
business-motivated future sale. Second, and most important, no offer has yet been made to
purchase Egret. Since no offer is outstanding, it would be difficult to argue that the dividend
is properly treated as part of the sales price of Egret.
Another case, more similar to the Aqua and Egret situation, is Litton Industries, Inc., 89 T.C.
1086 (1987). In Litton, a large dividend was paid before the corporation attempted to sell its
subsidiary. In particular, Litton did not announce its intention to sell the subsidiary until two
weeks following the distribution. The Tax Court distinguished Litton from Waterman on
these grounds and allowed dividend treatment, together with the 100% dividends received
deduction.
Conclusion: Because the present situation is more similar to the facts in Litton Industries, we
believe that Aqua is correct in its assessment of the tax consequences of the proposed
1023
transaction. The dividend should be properly offset by the 100% dividends received
deduction and no gain should be recognized on the subsequent sale of the Egret stock.
4.
Section 162 allows as a deduction all ordinary and necessary business expenses. The term
ordinary refers to expenses that are common or frequently occurring in the context of the
particular business [Deputy v. duPont, 40-1 USTC 9161, 23 AFTR 808, 60 S.Ct. 363
(USSC, 1940)]. Necessary expenses are those that are appropriate or helpful to the
taxpayers trade or business [Comm. v. Heininger, 44-1 USTC 9109, 31 AFTR 783, 64
S.Ct. 249 (USSC, 1943)]. Finally, in order to be deducted, there must be a proximate
relationship between the expense and business operations [Henry v. Comm., 36 T.C. 879
(1961)]. The determination of deductibility under each of these three conditions rests on the
facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, reference to case law is necessary.
AnumberofcaseshavesomebearingonthequestionofdeductibilityforNetBiz.InDavid
M.Connelly,68TCM614,T.C.Memo.1994436,aplasticsurgeonwasthesoleofficer,
shareholderandkeyemployeeofamedicalcorporation.Allegedlytopromoteandadvertise
medicalservices,thecorporationleasedaRollsRoyceSilverShadowthatwasusedbythe
doctortoattendmedicalconventionsandforotherbusinesspurposes.Whendisallowingthe
leasepaymentsasadeduction,thecourtheldinthatcasethattherelationbetweenleasinga
RollsRoyceandenhancementofthetaxpayersskillorreputationwasatbest,dubious.In
addition, the court noted that no evidence was introduced suggesting that patients were
attractedtothemedicalpracticebyvirtueoftheRollsRoyce.
ThereasoninginConnellywasfollowedinasubsequentunpublisheddecision,MohanRoy,
M.D.,Inc. v. Comm., 991USTC 50,588, 83AFTR2d 992849(CA9,1999). As in
Connelly,Dr.Royownedandwasemployedbyamedicalcorporation,whichpurchaseda
RollsRoyceforhisuseinordertoattractpatients.RoyhasgreatersimilaritytoNetBizsfact
patternbecausethedoctorusedthecaronlyoccasionally,forbothbusinessandpersonal
reasons, and he kept the car at his home. In addition, as in the present case, Dr. Roy
indicated intestimony that herarely used the Rolls Royce because he thought it would
discouragepatientreferrals.OnepossibledistinctionbetweenthefactsinRoyandpresent
caseisthatthetaxpayerin Roy failedtoprovideadequatesubstantiationrequiredunder
274(d). However, regardless of the substantiation issue, the court noted that Dr. Roys
testimonyregardingtheexpectednegativeimpactonbusiness,togetherwiththecarslimited
use (and personal use) undermined any claim that the automobile was an ordinary and
necessaryexpense.NodeductionforexpensesrelatedtotheRollsRoycewasallowedinthe
case.
In light of the above cases, it will be very difficult to make an argument for deductibility of
the Ferraris operating expenses and depreciation. In order to do so, at a minimum, NetBiz
will need to provide evidence that the Ferrari increased business (and perhaps compare the
role played by an exotic car in medical practices and systems consulting). Coreys belief that
clients see the car as ostentatious works against this argument, however.
With respect to the amount of constructive dividend received by Corey, the answer is unclear.
In Joseph Proctor, 42 TCM 725, T.C. Memo. 1981-436, where a corporations automobile
expense was disallowed because it was attributable to shareholders personal use, the value of
the constructive dividend was deemed to be the fair market value of the benefits received
10-24

(fair rental value plus operating expenses paid for by the corporation). This amount exceeded
the amount of disallowed auto expenses. In contrast, in Roy and in Ruth Rodenbaugh, et al.,
33 TCM 169, T.C. Memo. 1974-36, the court judged the amount of dividend to be some
portion of disallowed expenses. In Rodenbaugh, the amount of operating expenses plus
disallowed depreciation was deemed to be a constructive dividend, but no discussion
regarding this judgment is provided in the decision. In Roy, the doctor testified that the fair
rental value of the Rolls Royce was $85 to $96 per day. The IRS provided expert testimony
regarding rental rates for a Rolls Royce, but the rates were several years old. The court
rejected both testimonies as uninformative and, instead, used operating expenses (excluding
disallowed depreciation) to determine value.
Because of the Ferrari 550s rarity, it will probably be difficult to find appropriate rental
rates. Hence, it is likely that the court will find Coreys dividend to be either operating
expenses or operating expenses plus disallowed depreciation. Since Roy is the most similar
case, the use of operating expenses as a measure of the dividend is probably reasonable.
5.
The Internet Activity research problems require that the student access various sites on the
Internet. Thus, each students solution likely will vary from that of the others.
You should determine the skill and experience levels of the students before making the
assignment, coaching them where necessary so as to broaden the scope of the exercise to the
entire available electronic world.
Make certain that you encourage students to explore all parts of the World Wide Web in this
process, including the key tax sites, but also information found through the web sites of
newspapers, magazines, businesses, tax professionals, government agencies, political outlets,
and so on. They should work with Internet resources other than the Web as well, including
newsgroups and other interest-oriented lists.
Build interaction into the exercise wherever possible, asking the student to send and receive
e-mail in a professional and responsible manner.
6.
See the Internet Activity comment above.
NOTES
1025

Corporations: Earnings & Profits and Dividend Distributions Solutions To Problem Material

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Corporations: Earnings & Profits and Dividend Distributions Solutions To Problem Material

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CHAPTER 10

CORPORATIONS: EARNINGS & PROFITS

Amount of dividend income

Taxation of dividend when E & P has positive

Earnings and profits and tax evasion

Vireo Corporations E & P as of December 31 is $630,000, computed as follows:

pp. 10-4 to 10-7

Is the distribution from corporate earnings?

Is the distribution in partial or complete liquidation of Yellow Corporation?

Does the distribution qualify as a stock redemption for tax purposes?

What is the E & P of Yellow Corporation?

2001 Entities Volume/Solutions Manual

Has corporate E & P been determined accurately for tax purposes?

How will the distribution affect E & P for Yellow Corporation?

Accumulated E & P and current E & P are netted

Taxed to the extent of current E & P.

Taxed to the extent of current and accumulated

Accumulated E & P and current E & P netted on

When the result in current E & P is a deficit for

pp. 10-7 to 10-10

Taxed to the extent of current E & P. Capital gain to

Taxed to the extent of current and accumulated E & P.

Taxed to the extent of current E & P.

Accumulated E & P and current E & P are netted on the

When the result in current E & P is a deficit for the

pp. 10-7 to 10-10

2001 Entities Volume/Solutions Manual

Note: The deduction of the remaining $10,000 charitable contribution in e. is an increase in

The receipt of a $10,000 dividend will generate a dividends received deduction of

2001 Entities Volume/Solutions Manual

Only ADS straight-line depreciation reduces E & P; thus, E & P is increased by

Concept Summary 10-1

Vireo has a gain of $75,000 on the distribution, computed as follows: $195,000

pp. 10-11 to 10-14

Orcas basis in the property is $110,000.

The distribution reduces Penguins E & P account by $120,000 [$150,000 (adjusted

pp. 10-11 to 10-14

Crossbill Corporation recognizes a gain of $140,000 on the distribution. Crossbills E &

How is Copper Corporation taxed on the property distribution to Cybil?

How do the distributions to Cybil and to Sally affect Coppers E & P?

How will Cybil and Sally be taxed on the distributions?

What is Cybils basis in her stock when she sells it to Dana?

pp. 10-2 to 10-10

The determination of the reasonableness of compensation paid to an employee who is

If the employee-shareholder was underpaid during the formative period of the

Year-end bonuses would be vulnerable to constructive dividend treatment, particularly

2001 Entities Volume/Solutions Manual

Taxable income to Lea is $20,000 [$100,000 (value of the property) - $80,000

Corporate E & P after the distribution is $77,350, computed as follows:

The tax basis of the property to Lea is $100,000.

pp. 10-11 to 10-14

Less: Dividends received deduction (70% of $40,000)

2001 Entities Volume/Solutions Manual

pp. 10-4 to 10-7

Smith, Raabe, and Maloney, CPAs

2001 Entities Volume/Solutions Manual

Basis of stock: $3,000 X 8/10 = $2,400

Basis of the new stock is $3,960, computed as follows:

Smith, Raabe, and Maloney, CPAs

2001 Entities Volume/Solutions Manual

2001 Entities Volume/Solutions Manual

Smith, Raabe, and Maloney, CPAs

November 15, 2000