- 111 -
Horbury transaction, respondent argues that petitioner has not
satisfied his burden of proving, inter alia, that, in substance,
Horbury, and not Pioneer, was the lender with respect to that
transaction or that the interest paid in 1984 by BOT to Horbury,
which was incorporated in the Netherlands, otherwise was exempt
from tax under the U.S.-Netherlands treaty. Although
respondentdoes not expressly argue that petitioner has failed to
establish a nontax, business purpose for the form of the Horbury
transaction, she does cite Aiken Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner, 56
T.C. 925 (1971), where we found that only a tax avoidance purpose
existed for the form of the transaction there involved. We thus
understand respondent to be arguing that petitioner has not
established a nontax, business purpose for the form of the Hor-
bury transaction.
2. Petitioner's Position
Petitioner argues that the interest at issue in the Horbury
transaction is exempt from U.S. taxation and withholding under
the U.S.-Netherlands treaty. In this connection, he contends
that, based on, inter alia, allegations in his testimony concern-
ing that transaction, the Court should create a presumption,
which respondent should be required to rebut, that that interest
is exempt from U.S. taxation.
Page: Previous 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011