- 153 -
cate of deposit that, in form, secured that loan.111 Consequent-
ly, even though, as petitioner points out, Bangkok Bank Ltd.
through its Los Angeles branch could be considered to have
"owned" the interest that Radcliffe, in form, paid to it with
respect to BB Loan No. 3, the inflow of those interest payments
to it was matched in both amount (except for the .5 percent dif-
ference between the interest rate on that loan and the interest
rate on the certificate of deposit that, in form, secured that
loan) and time by the outflow of interest payments by it to
Double Wealth on the certificate of deposit that secured BB Loan
No. 3.
Turning to whether the Double Wealth $1,000,000 CD that
secured BB Loan No. 3 was applied to repay that loan, the record
discloses that that loan was repaid on September 12, 1986, with
the proceeds represented by that certificate of deposit.
Based on our examination of the entire record in these
cases, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of
showing that respondent erred in determining that Radcliffe was
required to withhold tax on the interest that it, in form, paid
to Bangkok Bank LA branch as part of the BB Loan No. 3 transac-
111 See supra note 109 for our views on petitioner's alleged
reason why the due dates for the payment of interest on the loan
and the deposit were made coextensive.
Page: Previous 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011