Corporate Tax Rules: Section 351, IRC 338, and Consolidation
This paper examines three interconnected areas of corporate tax law. First, it analyzes gain and loss recognition under Section 351, which governs tax-free transfers of property to a controlled corporation, and explains when fair market value considerations trigger taxable events. Second, it discusses the assignment of income doctrine as it applies to cash-basis sole proprietorships and evaluates the strategic advantages of IRC Section 338 liquidation elections, using the HP–Palm acquisition as an illustrative example. Third, it addresses loss absorption in corporate mergers and the rules governing consolidated tax returns for brother-sister controlled groups, identifying ownership restructuring as a key strategy for achieving consolidated filing eligibility.
- Section 351 Transfers: Gain, Loss, and Fair Market Value: Gain recognition rules when transfers include cash or property
- Assignment of Income Doctrine and Cash-Basis Businesses: IRS treatment of income in sole proprietorship dissolutions
- IRC Section 338 Liquidation Elections: Timing benefits of IRC 338 and the HP–Palm example
- Loss Absorption in Corporate Mergers: How Corporation B absorbs Corporation A's losses
- Consolidated Returns and Brother-Sister Controlled Groups: Obstacles to consolidated filing for A and C
- Ownership Restructuring Strategy: Changing ownership structure to enable consolidation
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds abstract tax rules in concrete scenarios, such as the HP–Palm acquisition, making complex regulations more accessible and memorable.
- Moves logically from property transfer rules to income doctrine to consolidation strategy, building a coherent analytical arc across three distinct tax questions.
- Distinguishes between IRS acceptance and GAAP treatment where they diverge, demonstrating awareness of the difference between tax and financial reporting frameworks.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper consistently applies a rule-then-application structure: it states the relevant statutory provision or doctrine, then works through a specific factual scenario to show how the rule operates. This is a core technique in tax analysis and legal writing, bridging statutory interpretation and practical client advice.
Structure breakdown
The paper responds to three numbered questions. The first covers Section 351 gain/loss recognition and fairness considerations. The second addresses the assignment of income doctrine and IRC 338 election timing strategy. The third analyzes loss carryforward benefits in a multi-entity merger and the structural conditions required for consolidated return eligibility. Each section is self-contained but draws on a shared theme of minimizing tax liability through proper structuring.
Section 351 Transfers: Gain, Loss, and Fair Market Value
Under 26 U.S. Code § 351, a gain is recognized when the transferor makes an exchange that involves more than just stock — for example, property or money. Such a transaction involves the transferring of property by the transferor in exchange for both stock and cash. In that situation, the gain is recorded based on the excess of the fair market value of the property plus any money received. In other words, if the transferor receives more than what the property was worth, a gain is recorded for tax purposes.
This can be considered a fair arrangement. When assets are transferred, they should be transferred at fair value. If they are not transferred at fair value, taxation is appropriate. To avoid taxation, the transfer should be executed at fair market value. Under Section 351, a transfer done entirely in stock — where the transferee ends up with control over the entity — does not result in any tax liability. This is one way that tax can be avoided in future transactions of this nature.
There is also a case to be made regarding losses. Where an independent appraiser would deem a loss to be reasonable in an arm's-length transaction, that loss should be allowable. The IRS does accept such losses, but they are not recognized under GAAP. Under GAAP, allowing such losses would reduce net income. In theory, this reduces tax burden, but the IRS already accepts this outcome. There is a clear case to be made that GAAP should reflect the lower net income level, since for taxation purposes that lower income level has already been noted and accepted.
Assignment of Income Doctrine and Cash-Basis Businesses
The assignment of income doctrine in this situation reflects that this is a cash-basis business, and thus viewed as a sole proprietorship. The IRS would examine the dissolution and deem that the value flowing from it passes through to the owner of the company for tax purposes. The client has the right to choose his or her own method of accounting, but the IRS accepts certain methods and rejects others (Schnee, 2007). In this case, the IRS may press for its preferred methods to be utilized. The client will need to demonstrate that his or her own methods have validity in order to avoid the IRS insisting that the accounting for the transaction be done differently. The client may also need to show that the chosen method is consistent with normal industry practice and was not selected for the purpose of reducing tax burden.
IRC Section 338 Liquidation Elections
An IRC Section 338 liquidation election carries the benefit of immediate taxation. This can be advantageous if the transaction occurs in the same year that the company is incurring costs associated with reorganization. The taxable income for the entity might be lower that year than usual, so there could be some benefit to this timing with respect to the taxation of the liquidation.
A good circumstance in which to use this election is when the target acquisition is essentially an asset acquisition. The purchase of Palm by HP is a useful example. In that situation, Palm was ultimately going to be liquidated by HP, but HP wanted Palm's patents. HP was purchasing the company's stock primarily to acquire a specific asset the company held; the remaining assets were going to be liquidated. In that scenario, this treatment would have carried real value, because it was precisely the type of situation where a stock purchase functioned as an asset purchase. It was a qualifying stock purchase of over 80% control. Palm would have fit this treatment, as its assets would have been sold and the company subsequently liquidated.
References
26 CFR 1.1502-21A — Consolidated net operating loss deduction generally applicable for consolidated return years beginning before January 1, 1997. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from
26 CFR 1.1563-1 — Definition of controlled group of corporations and component members and related concepts. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.1563-1
26 U.S. Code § 351 — Transfer to corporation controlled by transferor. Retrieved April 30, 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/351
Practical Law. (2016). Section 338(h)(10) election. Practical Law. Retrieved April 30, 2016, from http://us.practicallaw.com/9-382-3203
Schnee, E. (2007). Clear reflection of income. Journal of Accountancy. Retrieved April 30, 2016, from http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2007/feb/clearreflectionofincome.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.