- 8 -
from McArthy not a sewer pipeline, but, rather, the direct
benefit of the cash disbursements.4 Thus, as we stated in our
opinion in Epco, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra, the General
Explanation is irrelevant to the facts in this case.
Having reconsidered petitioner's alternative argument and
addressed the merits thereof, we deny petitioner's Motion to
Vacate.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will
be issued.
4 One of the direct benefits received by petitioner as a
result of McArthy's contributions was that the funds went to pay
contractors and subcontractors to whom petitioner was directly
liable.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: May 25, 2011