Opinion ID: 277088
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Single Distribution.

Text: 19 Finally, the Commissioner argues that there is an implied requirement in Section 355 that the distribution of stock take place in a single offering and since Pacific utilized two offerings separated by almost two years, the statutory requirement has not been met. It is conceded that there is no direct authority for this proposition but the Commissioner argues that such a result is demanded by the scheme of Section 355. In particular, he refers to subsection (a) (1) (D) which reads as follows: 20 (D) as part of the distribution, the distributing corporation distributes — 21 (i) all of the stock and securities in the controlled corporation held by it immediately before the distribution, or 22 (ii) an amount of stock in the controlled corporation constituting control within the meaning of section 368(c), and it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary or his delegate that the retention by the distributing corporation of stock (or stock and securities) in the controlled corporation was not in pursuance of a plan having as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of Federal income tax, 23