- 108 -
the Bank transactions in which each was involved cannot be disre-
garded.
Although not altogether clear, petitioner appears to argue
further that the form of each of the Bank transactions should be
respected because it satisfies the test of Frank Lyon Co. v.
United States, 435 U.S. 561, 583-584 (1978). According to peti-
tioner, each such transaction was "a genuine multiple-party
transaction with economic substance which * * * [was] compelled
or encouraged by business or regulatory realities, and * * *
[was] not shaped solely by tax-avoidance features that have
meaningless labels attached".75
Relying on Newman v. Commissioner, 902 F.2d 159, 163-164 (2d
Cir. 1990), vacating and remanding T.C. Memo. 1988-547, peti-
tioner contends that, in order for the form of a transaction to
be respected, only one person involved in the transaction--a
person who need not be the taxpayer--must have a nontax, business
purpose for that form. Petitioner asserts that each party to the
Bank transactions had a nontax, business purpose for the form of
those transactions.
To counter respondent's argument that the Bank transactions
attempted to enable Radcliffe and BOT to shelter their respective
income from tax for the years at issue by generating interest
75 We note that petitioner, intentionally or inadvertently,
omitted the additional requirement imposed by the Supreme Court
that the multiple-party transaction be "imbued with tax-indepen-
dent considerations". Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S.
561, 583-584 (1978).
Page: Previous 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011