Close Cookie Popup
Cookie settings
By clicking “Accept all cookies", you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. See our Cookie Notice for more info.
Accept all cookiesCookie settings
Close Cookie Preference Manager
Cookie settings
By clicking “Accept all cookies", you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. See our Cookie Notice for more info.
Strictly necessary (always active)
Cookies required to enable basic website functionality.
Accept all cookiesSave settings
Cookies Preferences

Rev. Rul. 59-296: Insolvent sub's upstream merger; bad debt deduction

In Rev. Rul. 99-6, the IRS provides that certain transfers of partnership interests cause termination of a partnership.

Rev. Rul. 59-296: Insolvent sub's upstream merger; bad debt deduction

In Rev. Rul. 99-6, the IRS provides that certain transfers of partnership interests cause termination of a partnership.

Citations: Rev. Rul. 59-296; 1959-2 C.B. 87

Amplified by Rev. Rul. 2003-125 Amplified by Rev. Rul. 70-489

Rev. Rul. 59-296

Where a fully solvent parent corporation owns all the stock of a subsidiary and is also the subsidiary's bona fide creditor for cash advances in an amount greater than the fair market value of all the subsidiary's assets, the transfer of all the debtor-subsidiary's assets to the creditor-parent in a transaction which is a merger or consolidation under the applicable state statutes is a transfer made in satisfaction of indebtedness. Since all of the property of the subsidiary is worth less than the debt, no part of the transfer is attributable to the stock interest of the parent. The transaction is therefore neither a nontaxable distribution under section 332 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 nor a tax-free `reorganization' under section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code. See section 1.332-2(b) of the Income Tax Regulations; Ferdinand W. Roebling, III , v. Commissioner , 143 Fed.(2d) 810, certiorari denied, 323 U.S. 773. Accordingly, the parent corporation is entitled to a bad debt deduction to the extent provided in section 166 of the Code. See H. G. Hill Stores, Incorporated v. Commissioner , 44 B.T.A. 1182, acquiescence, C.B. 1942-2, 9.

‍

Product heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Get Started

Related Diagrams

10 Min Read

Rev. Rul. 70-224: Cause to be directed; § 368(a)(2)(C)

Rev. Rul. 70-224: It is held that the transaction in the instant case is an acquisition by X, solely in exchange for its voting stock and the assumption of Z's liabilities, of substantially all of the properties of Z, and is, therefore, a reorganization within the meaning of section 368(a)(1)(C) and section 368(a)(2)(C) of the Code. The fact that all the assets of Z were transferred directly to Y rather than through X to Y does not affect the reorganization.

Explore Diagrams
10 Min Read

Rev. Rul. 82-150: Deep-in-the-money options

In Rev. Rul. 82-150, the IRS holds that a sale of a deep-in-the-money option was, in substance, not an option but a completed sale of the referenced stock for purposes of the foreign personal holding company rules.

Explore Diagrams
10 Min Read

Rev. Rul. 2001-46, Sit. 2: Acquisition merger & upstream merger collapsed

Rev. Rul. 2001-46, Sit. 2: Under the facts presented, if, pursuant to an integrated plan, a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary of an acquiring corporation merges into a target corporation, followed by the merger of the target corporation into the acquiring corporation, the transaction is treated as a single statutory merger of the target corporation into the acquiring corporation that qualifies as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(A).

Explore Diagrams