- 107 -
(1943), and (2) were not controlled by Radcliffe, BOT, or the
foreign corporations pledging collateral. However, respondent
asserts that the involvement of those banks does not necessarily
insulate the Bank transactions from being recharacterized for
Federal tax purposes, especially where, according to respondent,
those banks desired to accommodate, and were susceptible to
influence by, petitioner, Radcliffe and/or BOT, and the foreign
corporations pledging collateral.
Respondent also contends that during the years at issue
petitioner controlled the foreign corporations pledging collat-
eral through his ownership of the stock, and/or his position as a
director and/or an officer, of those corporations. (Hereinafter,
that contention will be referred to as respondent's control
contention.) Respondent further argues that the Bank transac-
tions would still be subject to recharacterization even if the
Court were not to accept respondent's control contention.
2. Petitioner's Position
a. Petitioner's Principal Arguments
It is petitioner's position that, in both form and sub-
stance, each of the Bank transactions was a loan from the U.S.
bank in question to Radcliffe or BOT. As we understand his
position, petitioner contends that because the U.S. banks in
question satisfied the tests of Moline Properties, Inc. v. Com-
missioner, supra, during the years at issue and therefore were
cognizable for Federal tax purposes, their respective roles in
Page: Previous 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011