- 169 -
reason respondent espouses for her position is that those cor-
porations "were the ultimate source of the loans to * * *
Radcliffe."123
Proceeding from and constrained by respondent's concession
that a loan, in fact, was made to Radcliffe in the UB $1,300,000
loan transaction, we limit our inquiry to a determination of the
identity of the lender.124 The record establishes that, in form,
Union Bank funded the UB $1,300,000 loan to Radcliffe and that,
at the direction of petitioner and Ms. Gaw on behalf of
Radcliffe, the proceeds of that loan were used to purchase ini-
tially the Pioneer $1,300,000 CD and thereafter the Mandalay
$1,300,000 CD that secured that loan. Thus, neither Pioneer nor
Mandalay funded the certificates of deposit that were pledged to
secure the UB $1,300,000 loan. Consequently, neither of those
foreign corporations could have been, in the words of respondent,
"the ultimate source" of the UB $1,300,000 loan to Radcliffe.
Based upon our examination of the entire record in these
cases, and bearing in mind respondent's concession that a loan
was, in fact, made to Radcliffe in the UB $1,300,000 transaction,
we reject respondent's determination that the interest that
Radcliffe paid on that loan was subject to withholding tax.
123 As noted above, respondent advances the same rationale for
her position regarding all the loan transactions at issue.
124 We shall not explore, for example, under substance over form
and related principles whether a loan, in fact, was made to
Radcliffe.
Page: Previous 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011