- 168 -
showing that respondent erred in determining that Radcliffe was
required to withhold tax on the interest that it, in form, paid
to Union Bank as part of the UB $800,000 Radcliffe loan transac-
tion. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determinations that
(1) for the period that commenced on or about June 27, 1985, the
date on which Radcliffe assumed the $800,000 loan that Union Bank
or one of its branches or predecessors in San Francisco had made
to NMSC, and ended on July 23, 1986, the date on which that loan
was repaid, Radcliffe was required to withhold tax on the full
amount of the interest that it, in form, paid to Union Bank on
the UB $800,000 Radcliffe loan and (2) petitioner, as transferee
of Radcliffe, is liable for that withholding tax liability of
Radcliffe.
7. UB $1,300,000 Loan Transaction
Respondent concedes that a loan, in fact, was made to
Radcliffe in the UB $1,300,000 loan transaction.122 Thus, as she
acknowledges on brief, "The only issue here is the identity of
the lender." It is petitioner's position that the lender in that
transaction was Union Bank. It is respondent's position that the
lender was initially Pioneer and thereafter Mandalay, the foreign
corporations pledging collateral for the UB $1,300,000 loan. The
122 As noted above, respondent's concession that a loan, in
fact, was made to Radcliffe or BOT, as the case may be, extends
to all the loan transactions at issue. Petitioner alleges on
brief, respondent disputes, and the evidence in the record does
not reliably establish that the UB $1,300,000 loan was used to
repay a loan to Radcliffe that Pioneer had previously made.
Page: Previous 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011