- 198 -
doctrine and related principles in order to ignore or recharac-
terize the role of a person in a transaction that was otherwise
engaged in business and that was not controlled by any of the
other persons involved in that transaction was not unprecedented,
as petitioner contends, especially in cases, such as the instant
cases, where no nontax, business purpose had been shown for the
form of the 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. Commissioner, 64 T.C. at 93-98; Bank of Am. Natl.
Trust & Sav. Association v. Commissioner, 15 T.C. at 552-553.147
Moreover, petitioner, who acted on behalf of Radcliffe and
BOT, respectively, in arranging and carrying out the Bank trans-
actions at issue herein, admitted at trial that he was familiar
with the U.S withholding tax requirements applicable to interest
from a U.S. source that was paid to foreign corporations.
In short, on the instant record, we reject petitioner's
contention that Radcliffe and BOT had no reason to expect that
withholding was required on the interest payments they made as
part of the Bank transactions in respect of which we have sus-
tained respondent's determinations.
147 See also Rev. Rul 76-192, 1976-1 C.B. 205, in which the
Service announced to the public that a bank engaged in commercial
banking and not controlled by the other persons involved in a
transaction could be treated as a conduit under the circumstances
set forth in that ruling.
Page: Previous 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011