## Facts

- Esmark, Inc., a diversified holding company, owned Vickers, its wholly owned energy subsidiary.
- In 1979–1980 Esmark faced serious liquidity constraints, driven in part by increased energy inventory costs, weak performance in its food business, high short-term interest rates, and acquisition-related obligations.
- Esmark pursued two goals: reduce outstanding Esmark shares and dispose of its energy business (Vickers).
- Esmark and Mobil Oil Corporation structured a two-step transaction:
  - Mobil acquired more than 50% of Esmark’s common stock in a public tender offer for cash paid to Esmark’s public shareholders (Esmark did not receive the cash).
  - After Mobil became an Esmark shareholder, Esmark redeemed Mobil’s Esmark shares by distributing all Vickers stock to Mobil (an in-kind redemption).
- Mobil’s objective was to acquire Vickers; Esmark chose the structure in significant part for tax treatment under then-effective I.R.C. § 311, including § 311(d)(2)(B)’s rule for subsidiary-stock used to redeem parent stock.
- The Commissioner asserted Esmark realized about $452.7 million of long-term capital gain in 1980 by treating the overall arrangement as a sale of Vickers stock by Esmark to Mobil.
- Esmark petitioned the Tax Court after the Commissioner determined deficiencies for multiple tax years; the gain-recognition question for the 1980 transaction was the primary dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether the two-step tender offer and in-kind redemption should be collapsed under the step-transaction doctrine and treated as a taxable sale by Esmark of Vickers stock to Mobil, causing Esmark to recognize corporate-level gain.
2. If gain were recognized, whether constitutional equal-protection principles required application of Tax Reform Act of 1986 § 633(f) to the transaction.

## Decision

- The Tax Court held for Esmark on the primary issue.
- Esmark’s distribution of Vickers stock to redeem Mobil’s Esmark shares qualified for nonrecognition under I.R.C. §§ 311(a) and 311(d)(2)(B) (as then in effect).
- The court declined to apply the step-transaction doctrine to recharacterize the steps as a direct sale of Vickers by Esmark.
- Because Esmark recognized no gain, the court did not need to decide the contingent constitutional issue.

## Legal Principles

- A corporation’s distribution of subsidiary stock in redemption of its own stock can qualify for nonrecognition where the transaction satisfies the terms of I.R.C. § 311(d)(2)(B) (as then in effect).
- The step-transaction doctrine (including binding-commitment, end-result, and interdependence approaches) does not automatically override a specific statutory nonrecognition provision when the steps have separate legal significance and economic effect.
- That a transaction is structured to obtain tax savings does not, by itself, justify disregarding the chosen form when the steps are not a sham and align with the governing statute.

## Conclusion

The Tax Court treated Mobil’s tender offer purchases of Esmark stock and Esmark’s subsequent redemption of Mobil’s Esmark shares with Vickers stock as separate, legally effective steps, and held that Esmark did not recognize corporate-level gain because the redemption fell within the nonrecognition rule for subsidiary-stock redemptions in I.R.C. § 311(d)(2)(B).


Esmark, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 171 (1988)