Kuchman v. Comm'r, 18 T.C. 154 (Tax Ct. 1952). · Go Syfert
Search
Kuchman v. Comm'r, 18 T.C. 154 (Tax Ct. 1952). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Carter v. United States (alnd, 2019-08-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952 1989 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Carter v. United States
N.D. Ala. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kuchman v. Comm’r, 18 T.C. 154 , 163 (1952) (petitioner held stock with contractual restrictions and could not find a buyer; thus, stock had no ascertainable fair market value and petitioner’s acquisition of the stock did not justify charging petitioner with any income in the year of its receipt); Frizzelle Farms, Inc. v. Comm’r, 61 T.C. 737, 743 (1974), aff’d per curiam, 511 F.2d 1009 (4th Cir. 1975) (alternative valuation appropriate for unusual circumstances, such as valuation of a large block of stock or when stock is not freely transferable).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harold H. Kuchman and Jennie F. Kuchman
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Docket No. 29434.
United States Tax Court.
Apr 30, 1952.
18 T.C. 154
Harry J. Rudick, Esq., Mason G. Kassel, Esq ., and Joyce Stanley, Esq ., for the petitioners. Scott A. Dahlquist, Esq ., for the respondent.
Opper,Raum.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

OPINION.

Opper, Judge:

Respondent’s opinion witnesses and petitioner on brief agree that a purchaser could not be found for the stock in question with its contractual restrictions. Although respondent now seeks to rely on the testimony of one of petitioner’s opinion witnesses, this evidence on analysis is obviously a valuation of the stock, not from the standpoint of a purchaser from petitioner, but as of the time and under the circumstances that the underwriters distributed it. Since fair market value is defined as the price at which the property to be valued with all its attributes would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller generally, Andrew B. C. Dohrmann, 19 B. T. A. 507, 513, and not as the sale might be limited to one specific purchaser, see Estate of Millie Langley Wright, 43 B. T. A. 551; Heiner v. Crosby (C. A. 3), 24 F. 2d 191, we have concluded that the ascertainment of fair market value cannot be founded on this testimony.

The finding has accordingly been made that the property had no ascertainable fair market value in the hands of petitioner. Under these circumstances acquisition of the stock does not justify charging petitioner in the year of its receipt with income in any amount. Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Co., 300 U. S. 481, 577; Propper v. Commissioner (C. A. 2), 89 F. 2d 617; Schuh Trading Co. v. Commissioner (C. A. 7), 95 F. 2d 404; Morris D. Kopple, 35 B. T. A. 1056. Cf. Robert Lehman, 17 T. C. 652.

This disposition of the matter as an issue of fact, see Gould Securities Co. v. United States (C. A. 2), 96 F. 2d 780; Blanchard v. Commissioner (C. A. 3), 184 F. 2d 438, makes unnecessary consideration of the legal questions involved in the issuance of stock to an employee at a price below its fair market value. See Delbert G. Geeseman, 38 B. T. A. 258; Norman G. Nicolson, 13 T. C. 690; Wanda V. Van Dusen, 8 T. C. 388, affd. (C. A. 9) 166 F. 2d 647; cf. Commissioner v. Smith, 324 U. S. 177.

Reviewed by the Court.

Decision will be entered for the-petitioners.

KerN, Van Fossan, Haioion, and Raum, JJ., dissent.