- 178 -
85-163, 1985-2 C.B. 349.133
Based upon our examination of the entire record in these
cases, and bearing in mind the dearth of evidence with respect to
the Horbury transaction, 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 Horbury in 1984 as part of that transaction. Ac-
cordingly, we sustain respondent's determination that (1) for
1984, BOT was required to withhold tax on the full amount of the
interest that it, in form, paid to Horbury with respect to the
Horbury transaction and (2) petitioner, as transferee of BOT, is
liable for that withholding tax liability of BOT.
VI. Petitioner's Constitutional and
Abuse of Discretion Claims
Having sustained respondent's determinations to the extent
stated herein with respect to the transactions at issue, we
consider petitioner's claims that respondent violated his right
to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the
133 Respondent also contends that petitioner may show error in
her determination with respect to the interest at issue in the
Horbury transaction by demonstrating that that interest qualifies
for the grandfathering provided by sec. 127(g)(3) of the Deficit
Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, 98 Stat. 652-653, which
protects certain CFC's involved in specified types of financing
transactions from being recharacterized as conduits in those
transactions. On brief, petitioner has abandoned any reliance on
the grandfathering afforded by that provision. In any event, he
has not shown by reliable evidence that the requirements of sec.
127(g)(3) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 have been satis-
fied.
Page: Previous 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011