- 137 -
tests formulated by the courts under the step transaction doc-
trine,101 is inapplicable here. The record does not support a
finding that each step in each of the Bank transactions was
carried out pursuant to a binding commitment to do so.102 See
Commissioner v. Gordon, supra; Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.
v. United States, 927 F.2d at 1522-1523 n.6; King Enters., Inc.
v. United States, 189 Ct. Cl. 466, 418 F.2d 511, 517-518 (1969).
Consequently, we reject respondent's argument with respect to the
binding commitment test.
2. Whether the Role of the Banks in
Question in the Bank Transactions
May Be Ignored or Recharacterized
Even Though the Parties Agree on
Brief That Those Banks Were Engaged
in Commercial Banking and That They
Were Not Controlled By Radcliffe,
BOT, or the Foreign Corporations
Pledging Collateral
Petitioner contends that the banks in question were engaged
in commercial banking and were not controlled by Radcliffe, BOT,
or the foreign corporations pledging collateral. Respondent does
not dispute those facts. However, each party draws a different
conclusion in the face of those facts. Petitioner concludes
that, because of those facts, the role of the banks in question
101 As one court has observed, the binding commitment test has
seldom been applied since it was first enunciated. Associated
Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. United States, 927 F.2d 1517, 1522 n.6
(10th Cir. 1991).
102 The simultaneous funding of each loan and the pledge of the
collateral that secured it appears to be typical of commercial
loan transactions.
Page: Previous 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011