Summary

Pierce Butler Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Company Same…

The Board's findings of evidentiary details not only fail to support, but definitely negative, its conclusion that the consideration received by Tex-Penn in exchange for its assets included $350,000 in cash.
Essential to the project was the transfer to Transcontinental of Tex-Penn assets free from claims and equally indispensable was the transfer of the individually owned lease interests. Tex-Penn needed money to satisfy demands of its creditors. Should it be unable to free its property from liability, the entire enterprise might fail.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Company Same…

The Commissioner seeks reversal upon the grounds that the transaction was not a tax-exempt reorganization because Tex-Penn sought to realize a profit rather than merely to change the form of its ownership and that section 202 (b) does not exempt from taxation exchanges of property for stock. Specifically he argues that, assuming that the Transcontinental stock was the sole property exchanged for Tex-Penn assets, the transaction was not within the nonrecognition of gains provision.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Company Same…

The interest of the five in what the findings refer to as the remaining seven-eighths interest were Benedum six-sixteenths, Parriott and Kirkland three-sixteenths each, Lantz and Wrather two-sixteenths each.
In October, 1918, they caused Tex-Penn to be incorporated. Its authorized capital stock was $2,000,000, divided into 80,000 shares of $25 each. It issued 4,000 shares for par to the five lease owners ratably according to their interests; they transferred a fourth interest in the leases to the company. It agreed to develop the properties at its own expense
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature