Zero Basis Hoax or Contingent Debt and Failure of Proof?. Sorting Out the Issues in the Lessinger Case

Abstract

The author argues that commentary on the Second Circuit's 1989 Lessinger decision involving section 357(c) has not clearly identified the tax logic issues that are at stake in the case. He agrees that the controlling shareholder's obligation is not section 351 "property" and should not be accorded basis in the shareholder's hands. Instead, the obligation should be treated as a purchase money obligation that affords basis in the shareholder's stock unless it is properly viewed as contingent. In any event, proper structuring of section 351 exchanges of property subject to debt in excess of the property's basis for stock in order to reflect an actual retention of liability on that debt by the shareholder should prevent shareholder gain recognition under section 357(c).