The Zens v$.$ Quinlan case stands for the proposition that:

When a taxpayer uses a chrulbow approach in an attempt to aroid the tax consequences that would have attended the direct diabribution of the surplus to the taxpayer, the distribution is tarable an essentially equivalent to a dividend.

tax avoldance will alwars result in a tarable dividend and not the tale of a caplal asset

regardless of the order of the steps, the redemption of shares $($When combined with as huuance of stock or sale of stock by the shareholdernl as part of an integrated plan should not be treated as a dividend to the shareholder, but rather should be trented ar a sate or exchuyge under $5$ ec $\mathrm{.}302$ ibl

the buyer may request to separate the transactions and treat them as not being part of an integated plan

a$3$ndt ble correct