- 159 -
cases, and bearing in mind the substantial gaps in the evidence
with respect to the UB $570,000 pre-March 1984 and renewed loan
transactions, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his
burden of showing that respondent erred in determining that BOT
was required to withhold tax on the interest that it, in form,
paid to Union Bank as part of those transactions.115 Accordingly,
we sustain respondent's determinations that (1) for the period
that commenced on January 1, 1984, the first day of the years at
issue, and ended on July 10, 1986, the date on which the $570,000
loan to BOT was repaid, BOT was required to withhold tax on the
full amount of the interest that it, in form, paid to Union Bank
on the UB $570,000 pre-March 1984 loan and the UB $570,000 renew-
ed loan, and (2) petitioner, as transferee of BOT, is liable for
that withholding tax liability of BOT.
5. UB $325,000 Loan Transaction
The record establishes that, in form, Union Bank funded a
$325,000 loan to Radcliffe and Union Bank's affiliate Standard
Chartered Bank HK held a deposit in the name of Forward that
secured that loan. The record also shows that, in form, Union
Bank received interest from Radcliffe with respect to the UB
$325,000 loan and, although the record is silent on this point,
its affiliate Standard Chartered Bank HK presumably paid interest
115 See first paragraph supra note 108 for our views on peti-
tioner's alternative argument about portfolio interest.
Page: Previous 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011