Step transaction doctrine

Last updated

The step transaction doctrine is a judicial doctrine in the United States that combines a series of formally separate steps, resulting in tax treatment as a single integrated event. The doctrine is often used in combination with other doctrines, such as substance over form. The doctrine is applied to prevent tax abuse, such as tax shelters or bailing assets out of a corporation. The step transaction doctrine originated from a common law principle in Gregory v. Helvering , 293 U.S. 465 (1935), which allowed the court to recharacterize a tax-motivated transaction. [1]

Contents

Application

The doctrine states:

interrelated yet formally distinct steps in an integrated transaction may not be considered independently of the overall transaction. By thus linking together all interdependent steps with legal or business significance, rather than taking them in isolation, federal tax liability may be based on a realistic view of the entire transaction. [2]

There are three tests for applying the step transaction doctrine: (1) a binding commitment, (2) a mutual interdependence of steps, or (3) the intent of particular result. [3]

Binding commitment test

The binding commitment test was established in Commissioner v. Gordon. [4] Under this strict test, a court will combine a series of separate steps if the parties had a formal obligation to complete each step. This test is applied usually when there are long periods of time between steps in the transaction.

Mutual interdependence test

The mutual interdependence test combines a series of events if the steps are so interdependent that the legal relations created by one transaction would have been fruitless without a completion of the series. [5]

Intent test

The intent, or end result, test combines a series of closely related events that do not have independent purposes. If the intent of a step was merely to serve the next step, the court may consider the steps together. [6] This test is more concerned with subjective intent of each step than the mutual interdependence test is.

Examples

See also

Related Research Articles

A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis. Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law and subordinate legislation in UK parlance – or regulatory law.

Partnership Arrangement in which parties agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests

A partnership is an arrangement where parties, known as business partners, agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests. The partners in a partnership may be individuals, businesses, interest-based organizations, schools, governments or combinations. Organizations may partner to increase the likelihood of each achieving their mission and to amplify their reach. A partnership may result in issuing and holding equity or may be only governed by a contract.

Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States.

John Archibald Campbell American politician

John Archibald Campbell was an American jurist. He was a successful lawyer in Georgia and Alabama, where he served in the state legislatures. Appointed by Franklin Pierce to the United States Supreme Court in 1853, he served until the outbreak of the American Civil War, when he became an official of the Confederate States of America. After serving six months in a military prison, he resumed a successful law practice in New Orleans, where he opposed Reconstruction.

Australian constitutional law

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

<i>Ultra vires</i> Legal concept meaning powers are exceeded

Ultra vires is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act which requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is intra vires. Acts that are intra vires may equivalently be termed "valid", and those that are ultra vires termed "invalid".

<i>Furniss v Dawson</i>

Furniss v. Dawson is an important House of Lords case in the field of UK tax. Its full name is Furniss v. Dawson D.E.R., Furniss v. Dawson G.E., Murdoch v. Dawson R.S., and its citation is [1984] A.C. 474, or alternatively [1984] 2 W.L.R. 226.

"Ramsay principle" is the shorthand name given to the decision of the House of Lords in two important cases in the field of UK tax, reported in 1982:

Tax shelters are any method of reducing taxable income resulting in a reduction of the payments to tax collecting entities, including state and federal governments. The methodology can vary depending on local and international tax laws.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers. The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference". The doctrine consists of a two-part test applied by the court, when appropriate, that is highly deferential to government agencies: "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction [emphasis added] of the statute", so long as Congress has not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.

Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form. The business purpose doctrine is essentially that if a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the avoidance or reduction of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction. The doctrine of substance over form is essentially that for Federal tax purposes, a taxpayer is bound by the economic substance of a transaction if the economic substance varies from its legal form.

Cottage Savings Association v. Commissioner, 499 U.S. 554 (1991), was an income tax case before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Crane v. Commissioner, 331 U.S. 1 (1947), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court concerning the value, for tax purposes, of inherited property with a nonrecourse mortgage encumbering it. According to Boris I. Bittker, Crane "laid the foundation stone of most tax shelters."

<i>Alderson v. Commissioner</i>

Alderson v. Commissioner, 317 F.2d 790 was a tax law case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling of the United States Tax Court that an exchange of properties does not constitute a taxable sale under § 1031(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.

<i>Salvatore v. Commissioner</i>

Salvatore v. Commissioner is an opinion from the United States Tax Court that holds that a taxpayer cannot avoid paying taxes on the sale of property by first conveying that property to someone else. This opinion was later affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This case outlines some limitations on the "fruit-and-tree" metaphor established in Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) and further developed in Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940). Decided in 1970, the case arose when a taxpayer tried to avoid paying capital gains tax from sale of property by giving a share in that property to her children. She then paid a gift tax, which is significantly less than the tax on the gain would have been if she had not given a share to her children.

<i>Veit v. Commissioner</i>

The United States Tax Court decided two cases, both titled Veit v. Commissioner, in 1947 and 1949. These cases deal with the doctrine of constructive receipt. In both cases, the taxpayer was an executive vice president of a corporation. He was entitled to a fixed salary plus a bonus of 10% of the corporation's profits for the years 1939 and 1940, with the bonus to be paid in 1941. However, his contract was revised in November 1940 to provide that the bonus from the 1939 profits would be paid in 1941, and the bonus from the 1940 profits would be paid in 1942.

<i>Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.</i>

Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers.

<i>Copthorne Holdings Ltd v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Copthorne Holdings Ltd v Canada, 2011 SCC 63, [2011] 3 SCR 721, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the applicability of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule ("GAAR") in the interpretation of the Income Tax Act (Canada). ("ITA")

In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws.

United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of the 1926 Supreme Court decision in the General Electric case that had exempted patent licensing agreements from antitrust law's prohibition of price fixing. The Court did so by applying the doctrine of the Court's recent Interstate Circuit hub-and-spoke conspiracy decision.

References

  1. Keinan, Yoram (2007). "Rethinking the Role of the Judicial Step Transaction Principle and a Proposal for Codification" (PDF). Akron Tax Journal . 22: 45. As early as 1938, the United States Supreme Court has indicated that "a given result at the end of a straight path is not made a different result because reached by following a devious path."
  2. Commissioner v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 738 (1989).
  3. Rosenberg, Joshua (November 1988). "Tax Avoidance and Income Measurement". Michigan Law Review. 87 (2): 365–497. doi:10.2307/1289221. JSTOR   1289221.
  4. Commissioner v. Gordon, 391 U.S. 83, 93 (1968).
  5. Paul, Randolph; Zimet, Phillip (1938). "Step Transaction". Selected Studies in Federal Taxation.
  6. Long-Term Capital Holdings v. United States ,330F. Supp. 2d122(D. Conn.2004).
  7. Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331 (1945).
  8. Kimbell-Diamond Milling Co. v. Commissioner, 14T.C.74 (1950).