Anthony Teong-Chan Gaw as Transferee of Radcliffe Investment LTD. - Page 111

                                                 - 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