- 191 - conduit.143 In point of fact, the well-established substance over form doctrine and related principles are so broad in their reach as to permit ignoring or recharacterizing the role of a person in a transaction that is otherwise engaged in business and is not con- trolled by any of the other persons involved in that transaction. See Koehring Co. v. United States, 583 F.2d at 320; Burns v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. at 212-213; Estate of Weiskopf v. Com- missioner, 64 T.C. at 93-98; Bank of Am. Natl. Trust & Sav. Association v. Commissioner, 15 T.C. at 552-553. Moreover, as pointed out by respondent, the public was put on notice when she issued Rev. Rul. 76-192, supra, years before the issuance of Rev. Rul. 87-89, 1987-2 C.B. 195, that a bank involved in a transac- tion may be treated as a conduit even though it is engaged in commercial banking and is not controlled by the other persons involved in that transaction. In Rev. Rul. 76-192, supra, the Service, relying on factors similar to those relied on in Rev. Rul. 87-89, supra, held that such a bank was a conduit for pur- poses of determining whether the foreign corporation involved in Rev. Rul. 76-192, supra, had made an investment in U.S. property under section 956(a)(1). 143 Petitioner cites Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561 (1978), to support his contention. His reliance on that case is misplaced. It is distinguishable from the instant cases. See supra note 98.Page: Previous 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011