Company management, however, was blissfully unaware of this development and continued to file the business’s federal corporate income tax return and pay all federal income taxes.
Eventually, company officers learned of their plight and reincorporated the business in the same state.
For example, an auto or truck (you can use a blue book), marketable securities, etc. Moreover, the sale of business assets at a loss generally produces ordinary loss.
In that case, the distributee shareholder is another corporation which owns at least 80 percent of the voting power and value of the liquidating entity’s stock on the date of the planned complete liquidation is adopted and all times thereafter until the receipt of the property.) **When a complete liquidation is followed by a pre-arranged transfer of all or part of its essential operating assets to a second (almost always newly-created) controlled corporation, the steps may be “collapsed” and treated as a single, unitary transaction which bears an unmistakable resemblance to a reorganization. 1.331-1(c) “…a liquidation which is followed by a transfer to another corporation of all or part of the assets of the liquidating corporation…may have the effect of…a transaction in which no loss is recognized and gain is recognized only to the extent of other property…”) In LTR 200806006, however, it is highly unlikely that, if the dissolution had caused a liquidation, such liquidation would have been “stepped together” with the reincorporation (to find a reorganization). Such a transaction is popularly known as a liquidation/reincorporation. In the instant case, the corporate taxpayer would have been unaware of the fact that it had been completely liquidated and, thus, its eventual reincorporation, in belated response to such liquidation, could not be seen as part of a unitary transaction which encompassed both the liquidation and reincorporation. A fine line exists between definitions of a corporate liquidation and dissolution.But for tax purposes, the defining line can make a big difference.Of course, if the corporation should the asset and distributed the cash to the shareholder, the result would be the same.
The result would be similar if Madison is a regular corporation, except that the tax would have to be paid at the corporate level.(See Bittker and Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders at Para. Instead of paying a dividend (in the case of a C corporation) or a distribution (for an S corporation) in cash, you may be tempted to distribute property (car, computer, etc.) out of the corporation. If an S corporation distributes appreciated property to its shareholders, the difference between the fair market value and the property's basis will result in a gain that will be passed through to the shareholders. (an S corporation) owns a truck that was purchased for ,000.At issue is whether the company’s status as a corporation had been terminated by the administrative dissolution. Something else to consider is that under Section 336(a) of the tax code, a gain or loss is recognized by a liquidating corporation on the distribution of its property in complete liquidation, as if such property were sold to the distributee at its fair market value. 142 ) states that “…where a corporation ceases business operations, has retained no assets, has no income, and has actually liquidated, there is in effect a de facto dissolution, even though the corporation has not been formally dissolved…” In addition, it is entirely possible for the corporation to continue in existence even though it has been, as a matter of state law, dissolved.If it is considered terminated, the company would have been viewed as having completely liquidated, and both it and its shareholders would have experienced the tax consequences attendant to the situation. In other words, in most cases, the liquidation of a corporation commonly engenders two levels of taxation: tax will be imposed at both the corporate and distributee shareholder levels.* The De Facto Company Closure A complete liquidation is not always accompanied by a formal or legal company shutdown. Thus, unless dissolution brings about an automatic transfer of the corporation’s assets to its shareholders, the corporation, even though dissolved, continues its existence.Conversely, the stockholders record a loss (also, almost always a capital loss), if the net distribution is less than their adjusted basis in the stock surrendered in the transaction. Indeed, in that situation, the tax consequences spelled out in ( Section 331(a) and Section 336(a) will not be visited on the shareholders and the corporation, respectively.** Federal Law Governs The ruling concludes that the “core test of corporate existence,” for purposes of federal income taxation, is always, a matter of federal law.