Discussion:Cost basis of demutualized company stock
From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.
From TaxAlmanac
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 23:46, 23 October 2008 Kevinh5 (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 00:33, 24 October 2008 Jokadah (Talk | contribs) (Thank you.) Next diff → |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Kevinh5|Date=23 October 2008|Text=[[http://www.taxalmanac.com/index.php/Special:Search?search=demutualization&go=Go]] }} | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Kevinh5|Date=23 October 2008|Text=[[http://www.taxalmanac.com/index.php/Special:Search?search=demutualization&go=Go]] }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Jokadah|Date=24 October 2008|Text=Thank you.}} | ||
Revision as of 00:33, 24 October 2008
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Cost basis of demutualized company stock
| 22 February 2006 | |
| I have a client who sold stock received from a demutualization of their medical insurance company. What cost basis do I use for the stock sale? The client held the stock for 5 years. Could this be considered an involuntary conversion?
Thanks, Rob Buden | |
| 22 February 2006 | |
| The Service has consistently ruled that the cost basis of stock acquired in a life insurance company demutualization is zero. Presumably, they would take the same position on a medical insurance company demutualization. | |
Chautauqua (talk|edits) said: | 22 February 2006 |
| Zero is correct. | |
| 8 March 2006 | |
| Appears we now need to file protective claims for Federal purposes on demutualization sales we reported in 2002 with zero basis until the courts rule. Federal carries a 3 yr statute but CA carries a 4 yr statute. Wonder if CA would conform...guess we need to file protective claims for F & CA? (Per Kiplinger Tax Letter 1/27/06.....Fisher, Ct of Fed Claims) | |
| 8 March 2006 | |
| It is an interesting case. You start out with a life insurance policy that has inherent ownership. You get stock and keep policy. Stock has fmv on date of distribution. Is policy worth any less? Will clients pay for protective claims? | |
| 8 March 2006 | |
| For a $12k potential refund and in excess of $35k once you add the 2001 state tax refund...almost can't afford to not file them cause we don't know what the courts will rule. Wish that case hadn't happened...especially during tax season. Guess we only need to file each return as the statute approaches expiration. | |
| 3 January 2008 | |
| I have clients in Nevada who recieved funds from the demutualization of a workmans compensation insurance company. Previous to the court case questioning the basis of the stock pay out I was consistenly advised to treat this payout like any insurance demutualization. ( Capital gains treatment and zero basis) Now I am thinking that some portion of the payment is ordinary income because it is a return of fully deductable premuims (Workmans comp insurance). I would appreciate any opinions on this matter. | |
| 3 January 2008 | |
| I have a client with the same situation, but hadn't really considered the capital gain vs ordinary income aspect. I treated the $$ as ordinary income when I did year end projections, but after your question, I'm going to consider that some of the money might be capital gain.
Opinions on how to split will be welcome, or just in general will be welcomed. | |
| 23 October 2008 | |
| A client just forwarded me an article that was in the Sacramento Bee 8/28/08 regarding a ruling by the IRS in Aug, 2008 stating that the IRS ruled that stock distributions by Mutual Life Ins Co in the demutualization process are tax free. Does anyone have any further information on this? | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 23 October 2008 |
| Gosh, the accountant from Minnesota who was the driving force behind this court case [the Court made a ruling, not the IRS and if I recall, the Court is not sure what the basis is but believes there is a basis] became almost a celebrity. The case was Eugene Fisher, Trustee, Seymour Nagan Irrevocable Trust vs US, US Court of Claims, 04-1726T. The court ruled that the value was not discernible, but certainly wasn't zero, and that since in that case, the plaintiffs had not received an amount equal to their cost basis in the policy, they had not realized any income on the sale.
IRS may appeal, but if the money is enough, protective claims should be filed. See Spidell's October 1st issue of the Elder Care Newsletter. | |
| 23 October 2008 | |
| also NATP had a piece recently on this. The topic was discussed here on TA right after the court case. Probably by D&T.
Most of the professional journals have covered this. | |
