I. INTRODUCTION
In January 1998, Treasury issued final continuity of interest and continuity of business enterprise regulations under section 368. 1 Although these regulations were proposed in similar form in December 1996, the final regulations are different from the proposed regulations in some important ways. At the same time that Treasury issued the final regulations, Treasury issued temporary and proposed regulations addressing pre-reorganization redemptions and extraordinary distributions.2 These pre-reorganization regulations were finalized in modified form in August 2000. 3 This article reviews the continuity of interest and continuity of business enterprise requirements, and explains and analyzes the final, temporary, and proposed regulations.
II. CONTINUITY OF INTEREST
A. Overview
In order for a transaction to qualify as a tax-free reorganization under section 368, the transaction must satisfy the continuity of interest ("COI") requirement.4 Thus, the historic shareholders of the target corporation must have a continuing interest in the target assets and target business through the acquisition of the stock of the acquiring corporation. This requirement has its origins in cases dating back to Pinellas Ice & Cold Storage v. Commissioner,5 and Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co..6
The Internal Revenue Service ("Service" or "IRS") considers the continuity of interest requirement as satisfied if, following the transaction, historic shareholders of the target corporation hold stock of the acquiring corporation (as a result of prior ownership of target stock) representing at least 50% of the value of the stock of the target corporation.7 Cases have, however, approved reorganizations with significantly lower percentages of stock consideration.8
B. Application of Step-Transaction Doctrine
1. Law Prior to Final Regulations
Under the law prior to the issuance of the final COI regulations in January 1998, the Service, and to a lesser extent the courts, applied the step-transaction doctrine to determine if the COI requirement was satisfied. Accordingly, transactions occurring before and after sales of stock generally were examined to determine their effect on COI.9 However, dispositions not contemplated at the time of the reorganization transaction generally did not adversely affect the COI requirement.10 The Service and the courts looked to the facts and circumstances of each transaction in determining whether to apply the step-transaction doctrine.
In McDonald's Restaurant of Illinois, Inc. v. Commissioner, the Seventh Circuit held that a merger failed the continuity of interest requirement where the shareholders of the target corporation sold their acquiring corporation stock soon after the transaction. The Court applied the step-transaction doctrine in determining that the merger and post-transaction sale were interdependent steps and that the target shareholders did not plan to continue as investors at the time of the merger.11
In J.E. Seagram Corp. v. Commissioner,12 the Tax Court concluded that sales by public shareholders, prior to a reorganization, may be ignored when considering the COI requirement. In that case, Seagram purchased approximately 32% of Conoco's stock for cash pursuant to a tender offer. Subsequently, DuPont purchased approximately 46% of Conoco's stock pursuant to its own tender offer, and Conoco merged into DuPont. In the merger, Seagram exchanged its Conoco stock for DuPont stock. The Tax Court held that the continuity of interest requirement was satisfied, because DuPont acquired Conoco for 54% stock and 46% cash. The Tax Court concluded that Seagram "stepped into the shoes" of 32% of the Conoco shareholders. Accordingly, Seagram's recent purchase of stock did not destroy the COI requirement.13
2. Final Regulations
In December 1996, the Service issued proposed regulations relating to the affect of post-reorganization transactions by target shareholders on the COI requirement.14 In January 1998, the Service finalized the proposed regulations, with some changes. In addition, the Service issued temporary and proposed regulations that cover pre-reorganization transactions.15 The final regulations state that the purpose of the COI requirement is to "prevent transactions that resemble sales from qualifying for nonrecognition of gain or loss available in corporate reorganizations."16 Thus, the regulations require that "a substantial part of the value of the proprietary interests in the target corporation be preserved in the reorganization."17
In the preamble to the new regulations, the Service states that, although cases such as McDonald's focus on whether the target corporation's shareholders "intended on the date of the potential reorganization to sell their [acquiring corporation] stock and the degree, if any, to which [the acquiring corporation] facilitates the sale," the Service and the Treasury Department concluded that
Thus, the Service decided to effectively reverse McDonald's, stating that the final regulations will "greatly enhance administrability in this area," and will "prevent 'whipsaw' of the government," such as where the target corporation's shareholders and the acquiring corporation take inconsistent positions as to the taxability of a transaction.19
Under the final regulations, a "proprietary interest" in the target corporation is preserved if the interest in the target corporation is: (1) exchanged for a proprietary interest in the "issuing" corporation,20 (2) exchanged by the acquiring corporation for a direct interest in the target corporation enterprise, or (3) otherwise continued as a proprietary interest in the target corporation.21 In determining whether a proprietary interest in the target corporation is preserved, all the facts and circumstances are considered.22 However, no proprietary interest in the target corporation is preserved if
in connection with the potential reorganization, [the proprietary interest] is acquired by the issuing corporation for consideration other than stock of the issuing corporation, or stock of the issuing corporation furnished in exchange for a proprietary interest in the target corporation in the potential reorganization is redeemed.23
Thus, some post-reorganization transactions -- namely redemptions -- will cause a reorganization to fail the COI requirement. However, post-reorganization sales of stock will not destroy continuity, as long as such sales are not to the issuing corporation or a party related to the issuing corporation.24 Thus, as noted above, the final regulations reverse McDonald's.
Under the final regulations, dispositions of stock of the target corporation prior to a reorganization to persons unrelated to the target or issuing corporation is disregarded for purposes of the COI requirement.25 Thus, the new regulations codify the Seagram analysis discussed above.
3. Temporary, Proposed, and Final Regulations: Pre-reorganization Continuity
a. 1998 Temporary and Proposed Regulations
In addition to the final regulations, the Service also issued temporary and proposed regulations addressing pre-reorganization continuity in January 1998. 26 Under the temporary and proposed regulations (applicable prior to the date the August 2000 final regulations are filed with the federal register), a reorganization generally fails the COI requirement if, prior to and in connection with a reorganization, a proprietary interest in the target corporation is redeemed, or prior to and in connection with a reorganization there is an extraordinary distribution made with respect to such proprietary interest.27
Commentators suggested that the source of funds used by the target corporation to redeem its shareholders should be analyzed in order to determine whether a redemption should adversely affect continuity of interest.28 The commentators argued that if the acquiring corporation did not directly or indirectly furnish the funds used by the target corporation to redeem its shareholders, COI should not be affected.29 However, the Service seemed to conclude that since the target corporation and acquiring corporation are combined economically, they should be treated as one entity. In addition, the Service argued that "a tracing approach would be extremely difficult to administer."30 Thus, tracing was not adopted in the temporary and proposed regulations, avoiding the "difficult process of identifying the source of payments."31
In addition, under the proposed regulations, whether a distribution is extraordinary is a facts and circumstances determination.32 Note, however, that the treatment of a distribution under section 1059 will not be taken into account.33
The Service invited comments on "whether the regulations should provide more specific guidance" in the area of extraordinary distributions.34 One area of particular concern to many taxpayers was whether S corporations should be treated the same as C corporations with respect to the new extraordinary distribution rules. More specifically, commentators asked that the Service make clear the affect of the new rules on S corporations that distribute their Accumulated Adjustments Account ("AAA Account") prior to a reorganization. Under the temporary and proposed regulations, it appears that S corporations are treated the same as C corporations, and that the distribution of an S Corporation's AAA Account prior to a reorganization could be considered an extraordinary distribution.35
In addition, commentators asked that the Service clarify exactly what the term "extraordinary" means. If the term is given its plain meaning, then any distribution that is not regularly made (i.e., almost any distribution in addition to the corporation's periodic dividends) can be an extraordinary distribution.36 For example, suppose a corporation ordinarily issues a $10 per share quarterly dividend to its shareholders in cash. If such corporation issues real estate with a fair market value of $10 per share instead of its normal quarterly cash dividend, is that an extraordinary distribution? The total amount of the dividend is the same, but the type of the dividend is different.
b. Final Pre-reorganization Continuity of Interest Regulations
Commentators on the temporary and proposed regulations argued that the temporary and proposed regulations were overly broad, and that redemptions and distributions should not be taken into account for COI purposes unless the acquiring corporation "directly or indirectly furnishes the consideration for the redemption or distribution.37 In response to these comments, Treasury issued T.D. 8898 on August 30, 2000, finalizing the temporary and proposed regulations in substantially modified form. These final regulations "do not automatically take all pre-reorganization redemptions and extraordinary distributions in connection with [a] reorganization into account for COI purposes."38
Under new Treas. Reg. 1.368-1(e)(1)(ii), the COI requirement will only be violated due to pre-reorganization redemptions of target stock or pre-reorganization distributions with respect to target stock if the amounts received by the target shareholder are treated as boot received from the acquiring corporation in the reorganization for purposes of section 356. 39
Section 356 applies if sections 354 or 355 would apply to an exchange but for the fact non-qualifying property is received.40 For purposes of determining whether section 356 applies, the final regulations provide that each target shareholder is deemed to have received some stock of the acquirer in exchange for such shareholder's target stock.41 This provision is necessary because if a target shareholder receives only cash in the transaction, the amount received is generally treated as a redemption under section 302, not as boot under section 356. 42 Treasury and IRS officials have stressed that this "deemed stock" rule is solely for the purpose of determining whether section 356 applies, and no stock is treated as received by the target shareholder for any other purpose.
Because the new final pre-reorganization regulations focus on whether section 356 applies, taxpayers must analyze each transaction under relevant authorities, including the step-transaction doctrine and authorities such as Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Commissioner.43 These authorities generally analyze whether a redemption or distribution is a separate transaction (treated as a redemption under section 302 and/or a distribution under section 301), or part of a sale or reorganization (treated as part of the sales price or boot in the reorganization under section 356).44
The new final pre-reorganization regulations provide one example explaining how the regulations work.45 However, the example may provide more questions than answers. In the example, T has two shareholders, A and B. P wants to acquire the stock of T, but A does not want to own T stock. Thus, T redeems A's shares for cash, and P then acquires all the remaining stock of T from B solely in exchange for P voting stock.46 The example provides that "no funds have been or will be provided by P" for the redemption.47
The example in the final regulations concludes that since the cash received by A in the redemption is not treated as boot under section 356, the redemption does not affect the COI requirement.48 On its face, this example simply seems to be saying that if no cash for the redemption is provided by the acquirer, section 356 will not apply and thus the redemption will not affect the COI requirement. A closer inspection, however, begs the question of how section 356 could possibly apply to the facts in the example even if P provided funds for the redemption.
Although not specifically referred to, the reorganization in the example is apparently intended to be a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(B) (a "B reorganization"). In order to qualify as a B reorganization, P must exchange solely P voting stock (or stock of its parent) for T stock. If P provides the funds for the redemption, P is not be treated as exchanging solely P voting stock for T stock, and thus the reorganization does not qualify as a valid B reorganization. Therefore, the question of whether section 356 applies is never reached.49 If P does not provide the funds for the redemption, the redemption is treated as a separate transaction and again section 356 does not apply. Thus, it seems that section 356 cannot apply under any circumstance under the facts of the example in the final pre-reorganization COI regulations. As a result, the Service should clarify the example and the relevance (if any) of the new pre-reorganization regulations to intended B reorganizations.50
The final regulations generally only apply to transactions occurring after August 30, 2000, but taxpayers may request a private letter ruling permitting them to apply the final regulations to transactions entered into on or after January 28, 1998. 51 Thus, the temporary and proposed regulations, including the "extraordinary distribution" rule, should have little continuing applicability.
The following section provides a series of examples reflecting how the COI regulations operate.
Footnotes
1 T.D. 8760 (Jan. 23, 1998). All Code section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, unless otherwise noted.
In September 1998, Treasury issued amendments to the final regulations. T.D. 8783 (Sept. 23, 1998). The amendments to the final regulations are effective as of September 23, 1998.
2 T.D. 8761 (Jan. 23, 1998); REG-120882-97 (Jan. 28, 1998).
3 T.D. 8898 (Aug. 30, 2000).
4 Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(b). Prior to the issuance of final, temporary, and proposed regulations in January 1998, this requirement was called the "Continuity of Shareholder Interest" or "COSI" requirement. For purposes of this article, "COI" is used to refer to this requirement, even if the referenced authority was issued when the test was referred to as "COSI."
5 287 U.S. 462 (1933).
6 296 U.S. 378 (1935). See also Cortland Specialty Co. v. Commissioner, 60 F.2d 937 (2d Cir. 1932).
7 Rev. Proc. 77-37, 1977-2 C.B. 568.
8 See e.g. John A. Nelson Co. v. Helvering, 296 U.S. 374 (1934) (38 percent stock); Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co., 296 U.S. 378 (1935) (41 percent stock); Miller v. Commissioner, 84 F.2d 415 (6th Cir. 1936) (25 percent stock).
9 See, e.g., McDonald's Restaurant of Illinois v. Commissioner, 688 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1982); Superior Coach of Florida v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 895 (1983); J.E. Seagram Corp. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 75 (1995). See also Rev. Proc. 77-37, 1977-2 C.B. 568 (stating that "[s]ales, redemptions, and other dispositions of stock occurring prior or subsequent to the exchange which are part of the plan of reorganization will be considered in determining whether" the continuity of interest requirement is satisfied).
10 Penrod v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1415 (1987).
11 But see Novacare, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 165 (Fed. Cl. 2002) (stating that "continuity of interest is not disrupted based solely on post-merger sales"); Penrod v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1415 (1987) (holding that a post- acquisition sale did not destroy COI because the target’s shareholders did not decide to sell their stock until after the acquisition).
12 104 T.C. 75 (1995).
13 Seagram attempted to argue that the transaction was taxable, as it had paid a premium for the Conoco stock, and wanted to deduct its loss upon its exchange of Conoco stock for DuPont stock.
14 See Prop. § 1.368-1(b) and (e), 61 Fed. Reg. 67,512.
15 Temp. Reg. § 1.368-1T.
16 Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(1).
17 Id.
18 Preamble to T.D. 8760 (Jan. 23, 1998).
19 Note that the new COI regulations do not apply to section 368(a)(1)(D) reorganizations or section 355 transactions. Preamble to T.D. 8760 (Jan. 23, 1998).
20 The "issuing" corporation is the acquiring corporation, except that in determining whether a reorganization is a triangular reorganization under Treas. Reg. § 1.358-6(b)(2), the issuing corporation is the corporation in control of the acquiring corporation. Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(b).
21 Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(1). For purposes of the new regulations, any reference to the issuing or target corporation "includes a reference to any successor or predecessor of such corporation, except that the target corporation is not treated as a predecessor of the issuing corporation and the issuing corporation is not treated as a successor of the target corporation." Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(5).
22 Id. See PLR 200204002 (Oct. 4, 2001) (using facts and circumstances analysis in ruling that target shareholder’s continuing interest in target corporation was minimal at best because indirect ownership was through preferred stock with voting control but little value); Chief Counsel Memorandum CC- 2002-003 (Oct. 18, 2001) (same).
23 Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(1)(i). In addition, if in connection with the reorganization, stock of the target corporation, or stock of the issuing corporation furnished in exchange for a proprietary interest in the target corporation, is acquired by a person related to the issuing corporation for consideration other than stock of the issuing corporation, the transaction will also fail the COI requirement. Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(2). However, the transaction will not fail the COI requirement by reason of Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(2) if the direct or indirect owners of the target corporation prior to the reorganization maintain a direct or indirect proprietary interest in the issuing corporation. See Part II.C.Ex.5 for an example of the application of this regulation.
24 Id.Two corporations are related under the regulations if the corporations are members of the same affiliated group as defined in section 1504, or a purchase of the stock of one corporation by another corporation would be treated as a redemption under section 304(a)(2) (determined without regard to Treas. Reg. § 1.1502-80(b)). Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(3). Under section 1504, corporations are members of the same affiliated group if a common parent owns 80% of the vote and value of at least one other member of the group, and one or more of the other corporations in the affiliated group own 80% of the vote and value of each corporation in such group (except the common parent). Under section 304(a)(2), if X Corporation acquires Y stock from a shareholder of Y Corporation in return for property, and Y Corporation controls X Corporation, then such property is treated as a distribution in redemption of the stock of Y corporation. The regulations proposed in December 1996 had defined related with reference to sections 707(b)(1) and 267(b). See Prop. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(1).
Corporations are related under the new regulations if a relationship exists immediately before or immediately after the acquisition. Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(3)(ii)(A). In addition, a corporation (other that the target corporation or a related person) will be treated as related to the issuing corporation if the relationship is created in connection with the reorganization. Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(3)(ii)(B). See Part II.C.Ex.7. Related persons do not include individuals or other non-corporate shareholders. See Preamble to T.D. 8760 (Jan. 23, 1998).
For purposes of the final regulations, each partner of a partnership will be treated as owning or acquiring any stock owned or acquired by the partnership in accordance with the partner's interest in the partnership (and, correspondingly, treated as furnishing its share of any consideration furnished by the partnership). Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(4).
25 Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(1).
26 See Temp. Reg. § 1.368-1T.
27 Temp. Reg. § 1.368-1T(e)(1)(ii)(A). It is unclear what standards will be used to determine whether a redemption or an extraordinary distribution is "in connection with a reorganization."
Under the temporary and proposed regulations, a reorganization also fails the COI requirement if, prior to and in connection with a reorganization, a person related to the target corporation acquires target stock, with consideration other than stock of either the target corporation or the issuing corporation. Temp. Reg. § 1.368-1T(e)(2)(ii). Two corporations are "related" under the temporary regulations if a purchase of the stock of one corporation by another would be treated as a distribution in redemption of the stock of the first corporation under section 304(a)(2) (determined without regard to Treas. Reg. § 1.1502-80(b)). See Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(3).
Finally, the temporary and proposed regulations do not apply to a distribution of stock by the target corporation under section 355(a) (or so much of section 356 as relates to section 355), except to the extent that the shareholders of the target corporation receive boot to which section 356(a) applies, or the distribution is extraordinary in amount and is a distribution of boot to which section 356(b) applies. Temp. Reg. § 1.368- 1T(e)(1)(ii)(B).
28 Preamble to T.D. 8761 (Jan. 23, 1998). See, e.g., Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Commissioner, 430 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1970); Casner v. Commissioner, 450 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1971); TSN Liquidating Corp. v. United States, 624 F.2d 1328 (5th Cir. 1980); Litton Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1089 (1987).
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Preamble to T.D. 8761 (Jan. 23, 1998).
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 IRS officials informally stated that the distribution of AAA Accounts could be considered an extraordinary distribution, but requested comments as to how the extraordinary distribution rule should apply to AAA Accounts.
36 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., defines extraordinary as "going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary."
37 Preamble to T.D. 8898 (Aug. 30, 2000). Commentators also argued that S corporations were adversely affected by the temporary and proposed regulations, particularly because such corporations typically distribute their AAA Accounts upon a merger into a C corporation. Id.
38 Id.
39 Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(1)(ii). Interestingly, the COI regulations now provide two different standards, one for pre- reorganization transactions and one for post-reorganization transactions. A post-reorganization transaction generally counts against the COI requirement if it is "in connection with the potential reorganization," while a pre-reorganization transaction generally counts against the COI requirement if the amounts received by the target shareholder would be treated as boot under section 356.
Query which rules apply where the distribution/redemption and the reorganization are concurrent. Since the pre- reorganization regulations apply only to consideration received "prior to a potential reorganization," it seems that the post- reorganization regulations apply to concurrent transactions.
40 Section 356(a)(1). Section 354 can only apply if there is a qualifying reorganization under section 368. Section 354(a)(1).
41 Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(1)(ii).
42 See Rev. Rul. 74-515, 1974-2 C.B. 118.
43 430 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1970). Because the final regulations rely on the amounts received being treated as boot under section 356, situations could arise whereby redemptions and distributions count against COI even if no funds are provided by the acquirer. For example, in Revenue Ruling 71- 364, 1971-2 C.B. 182, Target transferred 90% of its assets to Acquirer in exchange for Acquirer stock in a transaction intended to qualify as a tax-free reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(C). Immediately after the transfer, Target liquidated, distributing the remaining 10% of its assets and its recently acquired Acquirer stock to Target's shareholders. The Service treated the receipt of the remaining 10% of Target's assets by its shareholders as boot under section 356. Thus, if the rationale of Rev. Rul. 71-364 applies to a distribution to shareholders prior to a reorganization, the final regulations would count the 10% of the assets received by Target's shareholder against the COI requirement -- even though Acquirer provided no funds for the distribution.
44 See Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Commissioner, 430 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1970); Casner v. Commissioner, 450 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1971); TSN Liquidating Corp. v. United States, 624 F.2d 1328 (5th Cir. 1980); Litton Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1089 (1987); McDonald v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 82 (1969); Rev. Rul. 75-360, 1975-2 C.B. 110; Rev. Rul. 70-172, 1970-1 C.B. 77; Rev. Rul. 69-443, 1969-2 C.B. 54; Rev. Rul. 68-435, 1968-2 C.B. 155; Rev. Rul. 68-285, 1968-1 C.B. 147; Rev. Rul. 56-184, 1956-1 C.B. 190).
The Preamble to the final regulations states that in determining whether consideration is treated as boot under section 356, "taxpayers should consider all facts, circumstances, and relevant legal authorities." IRS officials are presently considering whether to issue guidance under section 356.
45 Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(6), Ex. 9.
46 Id.
47 Id.
48 Id. Although it is not entirely clear whether the statement in the example that "[t]he cash received by A in the pre-reorganization redemption is not treated as other property or money under section 356" is a statement of fact or a statement of law, IRS officials have indicated that this statement was intended to reflect the numerous authorities that have concluded that pre-reorganization redemptions followed by a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(B) where no funds are provided by the acquirer for such redemption are treated as distributions under section 301. See Rev. Rul. 70-172, 1970-1 C.B. 77; Rev. Rul. 69-443, 1969-2 C.B. 54; Rev. Rul. 68-435, 1968-2 C.B. 155; Rev. Rul. 68-285, 1968-1 C.B. 147; Rev. Rul. 56-184, 1956-1 C.B. 190). See also Rev. Rul. 56-184, 1956-1 C.B. 190; Rev. Rul. 75-360, 1975-2 C.B. 110; McDonald v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 82 (1969).
49 See Rev. Rul. 75-360, 1975-2 C.B. 110. Rev. Rul. 75-360, which held that a redemption followed by an attempted B reorganization constituted an integrated transaction, makes no mention of section 356 -- the transaction failed the general requirements of a B reorganization and thus section 356 was not relevant. While Rev. Rul. 56-184 (Rev. Rul. 75-360's dividend counterpart) does refer to section 356 in ruling that a dividend followed by a B reorganization does not affect the qualification of such B reorganization, that ruling correctly notes that if the dividend were treated as cash received in connection with the reorganization, section 368(a)(1)(B) would not apply due to the failure of the solely for voting stock requirement.
50 Having determined that the use of section 356 for purposes of the COI requirement is misplaced in the context of B reorganizations, the next question is what is the relevance of COI to B reorganizations (in the context of pre-reorganization transactions) at all? It seems that depending on the source of the funds used to pay target shareholders, an attempted B reorganization will either fail due to the "solely for voting stock" requirement, or succeed because the distribution or redemption is treated as a separate transaction. Is guidance on B reorganizations in the context of pre-reorganization distributions and redemptions even necessary? The Service should clarify the example in the new regulations and the relevance of the COI requirement to B reorganizations in the context of pre-reorganization distributions and redemptions.
51 Treas. Reg. § 1.368-1(e)(7).
http://www.steptoe.com/publications/639185_v11.pdf
Copyright © Steptoe & Johnson LLP. All Rights Reserved.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
