Eugene W. And Marie P. Fireoved, in Nos. 71-1565 v. United States of America, in Nos. 71-1566, 71-1567 Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A shareholder redeemed preferred stock received as a dividend. The court held the proceeds were ordinary income under I.R.C. § 306, finding a tax avoidance purpose and that a prior partial sale of common stock did not immunize the preferred stock because the shareholder retained effective control.
Legal Significance: This case provides a key interpretation of the I.R.C. § 306(b)(4) “tax avoidance purpose” exception. It establishes that retaining effective corporate control after a partial sale of underlying common stock prevents a taxpayer from qualifying for the exception and receiving capital gains treatment on redeemed preferred stock.
Eugene W. And Marie P. Fireoved, in Nos. 71-1565 v. United States of America, in Nos. 71-1566, 71-1567 Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Eugene Fireoved was the sole common shareholder of a corporation. To facilitate a merger with a partnership and equalize voting control among himself and two new partners, the corporation underwent a recapitalization. Because Fireoved’s capital contribution was substantially larger than his new partners’, he received a dividend of 535 shares of preferred stock on his 100 shares of common stock. This preferred stock qualified as “§ 306 stock.” At the time, the corporation had sufficient earnings and profits. Later, to satisfy a partner’s demand for more control, Fireoved sold 24 of his 100 common shares. However, due to a unanimous consent requirement in the by-laws for corporate action, Fireoved retained his effective veto power and thus his control over the corporation. Subsequently, the corporation redeemed 451 of Fireoved’s preferred shares. Fireoved reported the proceeds as a long-term capital gain. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed a deficiency, treating the proceeds as ordinary income under § 306. The taxpayer sued for a refund, arguing the transaction fell under the exceptions in § 306(b)(4).
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the taxpayer’s redemption of § 306 preferred stock qualify for capital gains treatment under the § 306(b)(4) exceptions where the taxpayer had a business purpose for the initial distribution but also a tax avoidance motive, and where a prior sale of underlying common stock did not relinquish his effective corporate control?
No. The court held that the redemption proceeds must be treated as Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt m
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the taxpayer’s redemption of § 306 preferred stock qualify for capital gains treatment under the § 306(b)(4) exceptions where the taxpayer had a business purpose for the initial distribution but also a tax avoidance motive, and where a prior sale of underlying common stock did not relinquish his effective corporate control?
Conclusion
This case establishes that for the § 306(b)(4)(B) exception, a partial disposition Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
Legal Rule
Under I.R.C. § 306(a), proceeds from the redemption of "§ 306 stock" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad m
Legal Analysis
The court first analyzed the § 306(b)(4)(A) exception, which requires showing that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A taxpayer fails the § 306(b)(4)(A) tax avoidance exception if they