Anthony Teong-Chan Gaw as Transferee of Radcliffe Investment LTD. - Page 45

                                                 - 131 -                                                   
                  Based on our review of the entire record in these cases,                                 
            petitioner has failed to persuade us that the Bank transactions                                
            took the form they did because the foreign corporations pledging                               
            collateral desired to assist Radcliffe and BOT.                                                
                  We have found on the instant record that petitioner has not                              
            established that the Bank transactions took the form that they                                 
            did because of any nontax, business purpose of the foreign cor-                                
            porations pledging collateral that petitioner alleges on brief.                                
                                            (d) Summary                                                    
                  We have found on the instant record that petitioner has not                              
            established that the Bank transactions took the form they did                                  
            because of any nontax, business purpose on the part of any of the                              
            persons involved in those transactions that petitioner alleges on                              
            brief.  The only indication of the purpose for that form is                                    
            petitioner's acknowledgment on brief that the persons involved in                              


            97(...continued)                                                                               
            preferred the form of the Bank transactions involving them for                                 
            that reason.  We do not accept petitioner's contention that the                                
            form of the transactions at issue involving Pioneer and its                                    
            subsidiaries Multi-Credit and Mandalay made their violation of                                 
            Hong Kong corporate law less obvious.  As just stated, Hong Kong                               
            corporate law prohibited not only direct loans to Radcliffe by                                 
            Pioneer and its subsidiaries, but also the pledging by those                                   
            corporations of collateral for loans to Radcliffe by the U.S.                                  
            banks in question.  Furthermore, the parties do not dispute on                                 
            brief that in 1983, at the request of petitioner, Union Bank                                   
            released its lien on the $800,000 deposit of Multi-Credit that                                 
            secured the $800,000 NMSC loan during Multi-Credit's financial                                 
            reporting period.  That petitioner found it necessary to have                                  
            Union Bank release that lien indicates to us that neither he nor                               
            Pioneer and its subsidiaries Multi-Credit and Mandalay believed                                
            that the form of the loan transactions at issue involving those                                
            corporations made their violation of Hong Kong law less obvious.                               




Page:  Previous  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011