Section 1202's tax exclusion: Court rules taxpayers didn't satisfy high burden

ARTICLE | March 29, 2024

Authored by RSM US LLP

Executive summary: For capital gain exclusion, taxpayers bear the burden of satisfying the section 1202 gross assets and holding period requirements.

In a recent case, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rejected a taxpayer’s attempt to exclude capital gain under section 1202. The court emphasized that taxpayers bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the qualified small business corporation’s gross assets were not greater than $50 million at the time of the issuance of the stock. The court also rejected the taxpayer’s claim that he owned some of the stock before he actually received the stock.


Section 1202 provides shareholders an opportunity to exclude some or all of the gain they realize from the sale of qualified small business (QSB) stock held for more than five years if the section 1202’s detailed requirements are met. In addition to the five-year holding period requirement, the stock must be issued by the QSB corporation directly to the shareholder, and the aggregate gross assets of the QSB corporation must be $50 million or less at all times from the date of its incorporation through immediately after the issuance of the stock for which the gain exclusion is sought. Further details regarding section 1202’s requirements and benefits can be found in our article, Understanding the qualified small business stock gain exclusion.

The recent U.S. Court of Federal Claims decision in Ju v. United States illustrates that section 1202’s requirements require careful adherence. The court ruled that the taxpayer bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the aggregate gross assets test is satisfied. Further, the court rejected the taxpayer’s claim that he owned some of the QSB stock before he actually received the stock. For stock with the taxpayer’s earlier ownership claim rejected, the taxpayer could not meet section 1202’s five-year holding period requirement.

The issues and rulings

Dr. Ju, the taxpayer, developed several patents while employed by the University of Oklahoma, which the university then licensed to a company called Selexys in exchange for Selexys stock. A dispute between Dr. Ju and the university arose. The parties settled the dispute in 2015. The settlement instructed Selexys to reissue to Dr. Ju some of the shares that it had previously issued to the university, which Selexys did. About 18 thousand shares had been issued to Dr. Ju in 2003, and the 2015 settlement provided Dr. Ju with another 53 thousand shares.

In 2016, Dr. Ju sold his Selexys shares, realizing capital gain. Dr. Ju originally paid tax on that gain, but later filed for a tax refund claiming that his sale of Selexys stock was eligible for the section 1202 gain exclusion. In the ensuing tax litigation, both Dr. Ju and the government requested via a summary judgment motion that the court rule in their favor. The court rejected the taxpayer’s motion and partially granted the government’s motion.

With regard to the 53 thousand shares, the court ruled that Dr. Ju did not have ownership of the shares until the settlement was reached in 2015—notwithstanding his legal claim to the shares originating in 2003. He accordingly held the shares for less than two years at the time he sold them in 2016. The court therefore granted the government’s motion of summary judgement with regard to those shares, since Dr. Ju did not meet section 1202’s five year holding period requirement with respect to those shares.

The second issue addressed by the court related to Dr. Ju’s assertion that his stock qualified as QSB stock (relevant to the remaining 18 thousand shares). The court rejected Dr. Ju’s summary judgment motion on this issue and ruled that Dr. Ju had not established that Selexys met the section 1202 aggregate gross asset requirement. Although Dr. Ju had provided financial records from 2009 through 2011 demonstrating that Selexys’ gross assets totaled $2.15 million during that period—which is far beneath the $50 million threshold—the court nonetheless ruled that the financial records constituted insufficient evidence.

The aggregate gross asset test focuses on a company’s gross asset total (generally measured by tax basis) as of and prior to the stock’s issuance date. The stock issuance date for the 18 thousand shares was in 2003, six years before 2009, and a company’s gross assets can fluctuate significantly over that span of time. The court therefore rejected Dr. Ju’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Dr. Ju would need to present stronger evidence for the court to conclude that the gross assets test was satisfied.


Ju v. United States serves as a reminder that taxpayers looking to exclude gain under section 1202 must carefully document adherence to its requirements. Section 1202 has numerous requirements, so taxpayers looking to exclude gain under section 1202 should consult with their tax advisors. Additionally, taxpayers should maintain records that demonstrate satisfaction of section 1202’s detailed requirements. A failure to retain appropriate financial records may result in ineligibility for the capital gain exclusion.

Let's Talk!

Call us at +1 213.873.1700, email us at or fill out the form below and we'll contact you to discuss your specific situation.

  • Topic Name:
  • Should be Empty:

This article was written by Stefan Gottschalk, Joseph Wiener, Aman Tekbali and originally appeared on 2024-03-29.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each is separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit us for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM logo is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.

​Vasquez & Company LLP is a proud member of the RSM US Alliance, a premier affiliation of independent accounting and consulting firms in the United States. RSM US Alliance provides our firm with access to resources of RSM US LLP, the leading provider of audit, tax and consulting services focused on the middle market. RSM US LLP is a licensed CPA firm and the U.S. member of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax and consulting firms with more than 43,000 people in over 120 countries.

Our membership in RSM US Alliance has elevated our capabilities in the marketplace, helping to differentiate our firm from the competition while allowing us to maintain our independence and entrepreneurial culture. We have access to a valuable peer network of like-sized firms as well as a broad range of tools, expertise and technical resources.

For more information on how ​Vasquez & Company LLP can assist you, please call +1 213.873.1700.

Subscribe to receive important updates from our Insights and Resources.

  • Should be Empty: