Preview

Coastal Drillers Tax Memorandum

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1254 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Coastal Drillers Tax Memorandum
TAX FILE MEMORANDUM DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Jeremiah Cranston/Coastal Drillers, Inc.

Recently, Jeremiah Cranston contacted our office in regards to him possibly providing services under a consulting agreement for Coastal Drillers, Inc. He is concerned about the stock redemption that was completed six years ago and what effect, if any, working as an independent contractor might have on him regarding the redemption.

Facts: Coastal Drillers, Inc. is owned 100% by the Cranston family. Six years ago Jeremiah Cranston redeemed all of his directly owned stock in Coastal Drillers. This redemption resulted in a qualified complete termination redemption of stock allowing Jeremiah to recognize a long-term capital gain on the redemption proceeds. Jeremiah satisfied all the requirements to waive the family attribution rule to qualify for sale or exchange treatment on the redemption. Coastal Drillers has now offered Jeremiah a one year consulting engagement, as an independent contractor, with the ability to renew the contract for up to a total of 5 years, averaging $30,000 per year in compensation.
Issue: Does Jeremiah hold prohibited interest §302(c)(2)(A)(i) in Coastal Drillers, Inc. by being an independent contractor during the ten year period following his complete termination redemption?
Authority/Law: §302(c)(2)(A) provides that constructive ownership of stock owned by family members as defined by §318(a)(1) does not apply to a complete termination redemption of stock, if immediately after a distribution the distributee does not hold interest in the corporation (including an interest as officer, director, or employee), other than an interest as a creditor [§302(c)(2)(A) (i)] and the distributee does not acquire any such interest 10 years from the date of such distribution [§302(c)(2)(A)(ii)]. Under §318(a)(1)(A) an individual shall be considered as owning the stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for their spouse [§318(a)(1)(A)(i)],

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Tax Research Memo

    • 442 Words
    • 2 Pages

    | Over a period of time Latrell accumulated enough frequent flyer miles to purchase a free roundtrip ticket to Milan, actually valued at $1200. The frequent flyer miles he used were generated through business travel expenses paid for entirely by Latrell’s employer.…

    • 442 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tax Research Memo

    • 529 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In the case Selfe v. United States, 778 F.2d769, the taxpayer established a line of credit in her own name, secured by…

    • 529 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    4. Suppose that after his back injury in 2011, Manny sent his mother and brother a notice indicating his intent to withdraw from the partnership. Does that mean he could not be held liable for the debt to Al’s Feed Barn? Why or why not?…

    • 403 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Brad began working at Lay-Z-Guy in 1981 as a customer service manager. In 1995 his employer started requiring him and other salespeople to sign a series of one-year agreements that stated they could be terminated on 60 days’ notice. Three years later it required Brad to incorporate, and from that point forward, the agreements were between Lay-Z-Guy and Brad’s corporation. The agreements defined Brad, and later his corporation, as an “independent marketing consultant” and expressly stated that the relationship was not one of employment, but rather of an independent contractor–principal. Brad paid for his own office space and remitted his own income taxes and workers’ compensation premiums. At the same time, Lay-Z-Guy set prices, territory, and promotional methods and Brad was limited to servicing Lay-Z-Guy exclusively. In 2003, Lay-Z-Guy terminated the agreement with 60 days’ notice. Brad sued for wrongful dismissal damages, alleging that he was an employee.…

    • 348 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Law 531 Final Exam

    • 1213 Words
    • 6 Pages

    1) Which of the following is a distinguishing feature of a common law legal system?…

    • 1213 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Tax Research Memo

    • 790 Words
    • 4 Pages

    | Amanda should file her request as a separate return, and Head of household, so she is entitled to a personal exemption, standard deduction as a head of household and dependency exemption for Alex Jr. only.…

    • 790 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Chapter 1 Hw

    • 1056 Words
    • 5 Pages

    5. Topic, subtopic, and section # for the recognition of stock compensation: ASC 505 –…

    • 1056 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Accounting 440 Bank

    • 107692 Words
    • 431 Pages

    Kelly, who earns a yearly salary of $120,000, sold an activity with a suspended passive loss of $44,000. The activity was sold at a loss and Kelly has no other passive activities. The…

    • 107692 Words
    • 431 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Tax File Memorandum

    • 1081 Words
    • 5 Pages

    I SPOKE WITH PEACEFUL TAX PAYER ABOUT THE AUDIT NOTICE THE IRS HAD SENT. IT CONTENDS THAT THE AMOUNT PREPAID UNDER PEACEFUL’S PROGRAM CONSTITUTES PREPAID INCOME THAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN PEACEFUL’S INCOME (AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO TAX) IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. THE TAX PAYER WANTED TO KNOW IF THE IRS FINDINGS WERE CORRECT.…

    • 1081 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Business Law

    • 447 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Was Gilbert J Johnson acting within the scope of his employment? Is E F Hutton liable for Gilbert J Johnson’s tortuous conduct?…

    • 447 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tax Memorandum 1

    • 1113 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Internal Revenue Code imposes a Federal tax on the taxable income of every corporation. Sec. 11(a). Section 61(a) specifies that gross income for purposes of calculating such taxable income means “all income from whatever source derived”. Encompassed within this broad pronouncement are all “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 [47 AFTR 162] (1955). Stated otherwise, gross income includes earnings unaccompanied by an obligation to repay and without restriction as to their disposition. James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 219 [7AFTR 2d 1361] (1961). From the facts presented it seems that Peaceful enjoyed complete dominion over the prepaid funds. I find it significant that…

    • 1113 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    1.) Is Coconut’s February 1, 2012, arrangement with Buffett within the scope of ASC 985-605?…

    • 873 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tax Research Memo

    • 1179 Words
    • 5 Pages

    c. Green Thumb issues 40 shares of common stock to Paula plus a $100,000 ten-year bond bearing interest at 6% and 15 shares of common stock to Mary, plus a $100,000 ten-year bond bearing interest at 6%.…

    • 1179 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Northern Drilling case

    • 1152 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Peter Bremmer, has the opportunity to bid for the drilling contract of one of the largest players in the Canadian mining industry. Winning this bid could be a major step to achieve his growth strategy, but the company currently does not have sufficient equipment and experienced drillers available, the industry is short of skilled workers and the highly cyclical industry environment makes long-term investments risky. Additionally, he has only 3 weeks to make a decision.…

    • 1152 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Rump Organization

    • 1219 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Rump Organization, a SEC registrant, is planning a corporate restructuring plan. On December 27, 2005 Ronald Rump, the CEO of the organization, along with the Board of Directors approved a plan to involuntarily terminate 100 of the organization’s employees. There is an option for each of the employees to sign a litigation waiver, which forfeits any right they have for legal action against Rump. In exchange for their voluntary signing of the waiver, Rump will offer each employee a lump-sum cash payment equivalent to one month’s salary. If they refuse to sign the waiver they will not receive any severance benefits. The employees in question will not be able to retain their job regardless of whether the waiver is or is not signed. There are a few additional facts presented along with the case:…

    • 1219 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays