- 138 -
in the Bank transactions at issue may not be disregarded under
Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 436 (1943).103
Respondent concludes that despite those facts and that the banks
in question were cognizable for Federal tax purposes under Moline
Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, the role of those banks
as lenders may be disregarded.
We agree with respondent that the role of a person involved
in a transaction may be ignored or recharacterized even if that
person (1) is otherwise engaged in business and therefore is cog-
nizable for Federal tax purposes under Moline Properties, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra, and (2) is not controlled by any of the
other persons involved in that transaction.104 See Koehring Co.
v. United States, 583 F.2d at 320; Burns v. Commissioner, 78 T.C.
at 212-213; Estate of Weiskopf v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. at 93-98;
Bank of Am. Natl. Trust & Sav. Association v. Commissioner, 15
T.C. at 552-553.
103 Petitioner appears to advance the same contention under
Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 436 (1943),
with respect to the role of Horbury in the Horbury transaction.
104 With respect to petitioner's contention that the role of
Horbury in the Horbury transaction may not be disregarded under
the doctrine of Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra,
the record in these cases is insufficient to enable us to con-
clude whether or not Horbury was formed for a business purpose or
carried on business activity and therefore satisfied one of the
tests of Moline Properties. Even assuming arguendo that Horbury
were to satisfy one of those tests, as stated above, we would
nonetheless be able to ignore or recharacterize its role in that
transaction.
Page: Previous 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011