- 180 -
the substance over form doctrine that was first enunciated in
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), when it concluded,
inter alia, that, where (1) funds denominated as a demand deposit
were, in form, deposited into a publicly held bank by a foreign
member of a controlled group of corporations, (2) a loan was
made, in form, by that bank to a domestic member of that group,
(3) the loan would not have been made or maintained on the same
terms without the deposit, and (4) the bank was publicly held and
unrelated to the controlled group, such a transaction will be
treated as, in substance, a loan from the foreign member of the
controlled group of corporations to the domestic member of that
group.
Before turning to the parties' contentions regarding Rev.
Rul. 87-89, supra, we note that we have not applied or relied
upon that ruling in making our findings or in reaching our hold-
ings in these cases.137 We have applied and relied upon the
substance over form doctrine on which the Service purported to
rely in reaching its conclusion in Rev. Rul. 87-89, supra.
In advancing his constitutional and abuse of discretion
claims, petitioner contends that this Court should create a
presumption under rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence that
respondent's determinations were the result of her unconstitu-
137 A revenue ruling merely represents the Commissioner's posi-
tion with respect to a specific factual situation and does not
constitute substantive authority for deciding a case in this
Court. Stark v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 243, 250-251 (1986).
Page: Previous 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011