Anthony Teong-Chan Gaw as Transferee of Radcliffe Investment LTD. - Page 49

                                                 - 135 -                                                   
            Radcliffe or BOT from one or more of the foreign corporations                                  
            pledging collateral so that the interest on each such loan was,                                
            in substance, paid to one or more of those corporations, we would                              
            conclude that the failure of Radcliffe and BOT to withhold tax on                              
            such interest resulted in the avoidance of such withholding,                                   
            regardless whether the interest deductions generated by those                                  
            transactions reduced the respective Federal income tax of                                      
            Radcliffe and BOT.                                                                             
                               (2)  Horbury Transaction                                                    
                  While respondent does not expressly argue that the deduction                             
            claimed by BOT in its 1984 income tax return for interest paid to                              
            Horbury indicates a tax avoidance purpose with respect to the                                  
            form of the Horbury transaction, petitioner includes that deduc-                               
            tion in his argument that BOT received little benefit from the                                 
            interest deductions generated by the transactions at issue.                                    
            Consequently, we address whether BOT's claim to a deduction for                                
            1984 with respect to the Horbury transaction indicates a tax                                   
            avoidance purpose by BOT for the form of that transaction.                                     
                  For the reasons discussed above with respect to the Bank                                 
            transactions, we find that the deduction claimed by BOT in its                                 
            1984 income tax return with respect to the interest it paid to                                 
            Horbury does not necessarily indicate a tax avoidance purpose for                              
            the form of that transaction.100                                                               


            100  Moreover, if we were to sustain respondent's theory that the                              
                                                                            (continued...)                 




Page:  Previous  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011