- 184 -
retroactive effect of that ruling was not limited by the Commis-
sioner under section 7805(b), the general administrative practice
of the Service was to apply it prospectively only; and (3) re-
spondent's examining agent who proposed the deficiencies relating
to the Bank transactions bore personal animosity toward peti-
tioner. Respondent denies petitioner's contentions.
We find on the record before us that petitioner has not es-
tablished the allegations on brief that form the basis of his
first contention (viz., the back-to-back loan transaction in-
volved in Rev. Rul. 87-89, supra, was, and the National Office of
the Service was aware that it was, commonplace at the time that
ruling was issued).139 Even assuming arguendo that those allega-
tions were established by the record herein, they would not cause
us to conclude that respondent singled out petitioner for audit
and deficiency determination while others similarly situated were
not.
139 To establish his contention that the back-to-back loan
transaction involved in Rev. Rul. 87-89, 1987-2 C.B. 195, was
commonplace at the time that ruling was issued, petitioner relies
upon the newspaper article in the Financial Times and the August
1987 memorandum prepared by an attorney in the National Office
that, for the reasons discussed above, we have not admitted into
evidence.
To establish his contention that the National Office was aware
that the back-to-back loan transaction analyzed in Rev. Rul. 87-
89, supra, was commonplace, petitioner relies on the August 1987
memorandum. As discussed above, we have not admitted the August
1987 memorandum into evidence for that purpose.
Page: Previous 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011