This аppeal arises out of a federal tax assessment made pursuant to § 1239, 26 U.S.C., based upon a denial of capital gains treatment оf the profit derived from a sale of depreciable property by the taxpayer Earl Childers 1 to a corporation, of which it is claimed he owned more than 80% “in value.” The taxpayer paid the tax and sued in the District Court to recover. From a judgment entered upon а jury verdict in favor of the defendant, the taxpayer has appealed. We affirm.
In his appeal, the taxpayer presses two сlaims of error in the rulings of the District Court. The first relates to the trial court’s jury instructions; the second asserts prejudice arising out of improper сomments in Government counsel’s final argument to the jury. We shall deal first with the alleged error in instructions. This error concerns the proper application of § 1239, which denies capital gains treatment to profits derived by a transfer of depreciable assets of the taxpаyer to “a corporation more than 80 percent in value of the outstanding stock of which is owned by such individual, his spouse, and his minor children аnd minor grandchildren.”
2
It will be noted that the statute does not make the “more than 80%” determination depend simply on the basis of the number of shares
*1245
оutstanding; the determination rather is to be made on the basis of the real or actual “value” of the stock in the transferee corpоration held by the taxpayer-transferor, arrived at by a “process of fair market valuation.”
United States v. Parker
(5th Cir. 1967)
In this case, the capital stock of the transferee corporation, to which the taxpayer transferred the depreciable assets, consisted of ten shares of stock, fоur shares of which were owned by the taxpayer, four by his wife, and two by his mother. The stock of the mother was subject to a limitation on alienability in fаvor of the taxpayer and his wife. The issue in the case under the statute was whether the taxpayer’s ownership in the transferee corporation constituted “more than 80 percent in value. And this would in turn be materially influenced by whether the ownership of the wife in the transferee corporation was to be attributed to the taxpayer. And it is this matter of attribution of the wife’s stock to the taxpayer which represents the point of controversy between the parties. The taxpayer argues that in determining whether the taxpayer’s ownership meets the tеst of the statute, only his own personal interest in the transferee corporation must be valued; the Government contends, on the other hand, that the statute expressly directed that the wife’s ownership should be attributed to the taxpayer and that his ownership, aggregated by attribution with that of his “spouse,” was the ownership to be valued in ascertaining whether the “more than 80 percent” requirement was satisfied. The Court agreed with the Government and so instructed the jury. This the taxpayer asserts was error. We do not agree.
The statute, it seems to us, is plain. For purposes of the statute, including the valuation of the taxpayer’s interest in the transferee corporation, the husband and wife are to be treated as one. We substantially held this in
Mitchell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(4th Cir. 1962)
The plaintiff, also, complains of the failure of the trial judge to grant his motion for a mistrial on account of what he claims was improper and prejudical argu *1246 ment by Government counsel. In their closing jury arguments, however, both counsel for the plaintiff and the Government indulged in extremely uncomplimentary characterizations of the truthfulness and reliability of the witnesses for the opposite side. Counsel for the taxpayer began the attack and Government’s counsel resрonded in kind, though admittedly in somewhat sharper and less subtle terms. The language of neither is to be approved. But by implying that the Government witnesses hаd falsely testified, taxpayer’s counsel had little cause to complain that Government counsel countered by charging that the taxpayer had falsely testified too. It is true Government counsel used more direct terms in describing the taxpayer’s allegedly conflicting testimony but simply because taxpayer’s counsel was perhaps more subtle in his statement did not make his assault any less objectionable. The trial judge, who was present and had observed the entire proceedings, including the argument of taxpayer’s counsel, did not find that the argument of Government’s counsel, considering all the circumstances of the trial, warranted a mistrial. On review of the record, we cannot say he abused his discretion.
The judgment of the District Court is accordingly
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Ethel Y. Childers is a party to this action solely by virtue of filing a joint tax return with taxpayer as his wife.
. 26 U.S.C. § 1239(a):
“(a) Treatment of gain as ordinary income. —In the case of a sale or exchangе, directly or indirectly, of property described in subsection (b)—
(1) between a husband and wife; or
(2) between an individual and a corporation more than 80 percent in valuе of the *1245 outstanding stock of which is owned by such individual, his spouse, and his minor children and minor grandchildren;
any gain recognized to the transferor from the sаle or exchange of property which is neither a capital asset nor property described in section 1231.”
. In this case, the Court said:
“However, the compromise reached by the Conference Committee, following the Senate’s rejection of the House proposal, can be viewed only as deliberately restricting the scope of section 1239 to situations in which the taxpayer’s control over the corporation was not merely a likelihood, but practically assured. Thus, the stock ownership limit was raised to 80%. Stock held by others was attributed to the taxpayer only where his control over their stock was thought to be clearly established — these situations being stock owned by his spouse, minor сhildren and minor grandchildren.”
The real point in this case was whether a beneficial interest was to be attributed to the taxpayer. This casе held — and its decision has been approved in other cases — that such interest was not to be attributed. The 1976 amendments correct this omission and bring such beneficial interests within the statutory provision for attribution.