Anthony Teong-Chan Gaw as Transferee of Radcliffe Investment LTD. - Page 97

                                                 - 179 -                                                   
            Constitution (Fifth Amendment)134 and abused her discretion by                                 
            determining under Rev. Rul. 87-89, 1987-2 C.B. 195, situations                                 
            (1) and (2),135 that the interest at issue in the Bank transac-                                
            tions involved herein was, in substance, paid by Radcliffe and                                 
            BOT, respectively, to one or more of the foreign corporations                                  
            pledging collateral and that therefore such interest was subject                               
            to withholding tax under section 1442(a) by those two compa-                                   
            nies.136  Petitioner presumably contends, although he does not                                 
            explicitly argue, that if we were to sustain his constitutional                                
            and/or abuse of discretion claims, we would reject respondent's                                
            determinations relating to the Bank transactions involved in                                   
            these cases.                                                                                   
                  In Rev. Rul. 87-89, supra, the Service purported to rely on                              


            134  Although the determinations that petitioner claims on brief                               
            were the result of respondent's unconstitutional conduct were                                  
            made with respect to Radcliffe and BOT, he contends that those                                 
            determinations violated his right to equal protection of the law                               
            under the Fifth Amendment, rather than any constitutional rights                               
            of Radcliffe and BOT.  Accordingly, we address petitioner's                                    
            constitutional claim on the terms in which he has framed it.                                   
            135  Rev. Rul. 95-56, 1995-36 I.R.B. 20, rendered Rev. Rul. 87-                                
            89, 1987-2 C.B. 195, situations (1) and (2), obsolete for pay-                                 
            ments made after Sept. 10, 1995, that are subject to the final                                 
            regulations under sec. 7701(l), T.D. 8611, 60 Fed. Reg. 40997                                  
            (Aug. 11, 1995).                                                                               
            136  We do not understand petitioner to argue that, and therefore                              
            we do not consider whether, respondent violated petitioner's                                   
            right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment                                 
            and abused her discretion by determining the deficiencies at                                   
            issue with respect to the Horbury transaction.  In any event,                                  
            petitioner has not shown that respondent violated the Fifth                                    
            Amendment or abused her discretion in making her determinations                                
            regarding that transaction.                                                                    




Page:  Previous  169  170  171  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011