# Monson v. Commissioner > United States Tax Court · November 18, 1982 · 79 T.C. 827 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4484749 ## Case - **Full name:** Clarence J. Monson and Mildred R. Monson, 1 v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue - **Court:** United States Tax Court - **Decided:** November 18, 1982 - **Citations:** 79 T.C. 827; 79 T.C. No. 53; 1982 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 15 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nims - **Judges:** Nims,Korner,Hamblen - **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4484749 ## Opinion text Nims, J., concurring: Sections 302(b)(1) and 302(b)(3) focus our attention on whether there has been a complete termination of interest, whereas section 453(b) focuses on how the termination was accomplished. I think it is essential to bear this distinction in mind to rebut any imputation that we are shifting our ground in the middle of the case. A simple illustration illuminates the point: If A sells 50 percent of his X Corporation stock to B for cash, and the remaining 50 percent to C for an installment note, A has terminated his interest in X Corporation, but no one would seriously argue that the sale to B tainted the sale to C. I can visualize no policy reason why, absent the peculiarities of a case like Farha v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 526 (1972), affd. 483 F.2d 18 (10th Cir. 1973), X Corporation’s redemption of 50 percent of the stock for cash and C’s purchase of 50 percent for an installment note should be treated any differently. This I perceive to be the essential rationale of our decision. Kórner and Hamblen, JJ., agree with this concurring opinion. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4484749. Public record. Not legal advice.