Bausch & Lomb Incorporated and Consolidated Subsidiaries - Page 100

                                       - 95 -                                         

          Regs.  That is not the role of an expert, see Marx & Co. v.                 
          Diners' Club Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 508-511 (2d Cir. 1977); Garnac             
          Grain Co. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. at 26-27, and we do not rely             
          on Dr. Philpott's definition of the term "minor assembly" in                
          making our findings and reaching our conclusions herein.                    
               Based on our review of the entire record before us, we find            
          that the assembly operations conducted by B&L Ireland and by B&L            
          Hong Kong were not limited to packaging, repackaging, labeling,             
          or minor assembly within the meaning of the third sentence of               
          section 1.954-3(a)(4)(iii), Income Tax Regs.                                
               Conclusion41                                                           
               Based on our review of the entire record in the present                
          cases, we find that the sunglasses assembled by B&L Ireland and             
          by B&L Hong Kong were manufactured in Ireland and Hong Kong,                
          respectively, for purposes of section 954(d)(1) and that there-             
          fore the income from the sale of those sunglasses for each of the           
          years at issue does not constitute foreign base company sales               
          income as defined in that section.  Accordingly, such income is             
          not includible in petitioners' income under section 951(a)(1).              
          B&L Hong Kong--Section 954(b)(4)                                            
               In addition to arguing that the sunglass assembly operations           


          41  Although we do not address herein every argument advanced by            
          respondent under sec. 954(d)(1), we have considered all of her              
          arguments and find them to be without merit.                                




Page:  Previous  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011