Connection lost
Server error
George L. Riggs, Inc. v. Commissioner Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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 parent company increased its ownership in a subsidiary to over 80% by redeeming minority shares before formally liquidating it. The court held this was a valid tax-planning strategy, allowing the parent to avoid recognizing gain on the liquidation under I.R.C. § 332.
Legal Significance: This case affirms that taxpayers can intentionally structure transactions to meet the statutory requirements of I.R.C. § 332. It establishes that a mere intent or contemplation of liquidation does not constitute the formal “adoption of a plan of liquidation” for tax purposes.
George L. Riggs, Inc. v. Commissioner 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
Petitioner, George L. Riggs, Inc. (“Riggs”), owned approximately 72% of the common stock of its subsidiary, Standard Electric Time Co. (“Standard”). In December 1967, Standard’s shareholders approved the sale of substantially all its assets to an unrelated party, and Standard was renamed Riggs-Young Corp. The shareholder notice mentioned that a tender offer to minority shareholders was “contemplated.” In February 1968, Riggs-Young redeemed all its outstanding preferred stock. On April 26, 1968, Riggs-Young made a formal tender offer to its minority common shareholders, stating that if the offer was successful, the directors would “consider liquidation.” By May 9, 1968, enough shares had been redeemed for Riggs’s ownership to exceed 80% of the remaining outstanding stock. On June 20, 1968, the shareholders of Riggs-Young formally adopted a plan of complete liquidation. Riggs received liquidating distributions but did not recognize the gain, asserting the non-recognition provision of I.R.C. § 332. The Commissioner argued that an informal plan of liquidation had been adopted before Riggs met the 80% ownership threshold, making § 332 inapplicable.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: For the purposes of I.R.C. § 332, was the plan of liquidation adopted before the parent corporation acquired the statutorily required 80% ownership of the subsidiary’s stock?
The plan of liquidation was adopted on June 20, 1968, when the 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
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
For the purposes of I.R.C. § 332, was the plan of liquidation adopted before the parent corporation acquired the statutorily required 80% ownership of the subsidiary’s stock?
Conclusion
This case provides key precedent for the principle that taxpayers can purposefully 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
Legal Rule
Under I.R.C. § 332(b)(1), a parent corporation must own at least 80% 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
Legal Analysis
The court rejected the Commissioner's argument that an informal plan of liquidation 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 incidi
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A plan of liquidation under I.R.C. § 332 is adopted only