Barry B. Bealor and Nancy L. Bealor, et al. - Page 146

                                       - 94 -                                         
          administration of the tax policies of Congress."  Commissioner v.           
          Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331, 334 (1945).                                
               The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to which all               
          these cases are appealable, has recently applied the principle              
          that the substance of a transaction, and not its form, governs              
          its tax consequences.  As that court explained,                             
               The general rule on sham transactions in this circuit                  
               is well-established:  "If a transaction is devoid of                   
               economic substance . . . it simply is not recognized                   
               for federal taxation purposes, for better or for worse.                
               This denial of recognition means that a sham                           
               transaction, devoid of economic substance, cannot be                   
               the basis for a deductible loss."  [United States v.                   
               Wexler, 31 F.3d 117, 122 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Lerman                
               v. Commissioner, 939 F.2d 44, 45 (3d Cir. 1991), affg.                 
               Fox v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-570).]                            
               See, in this regard, Foxman v. Commissioner, 352 F.2d 466,             
          469 (3d Cir. 1965), affg. 41 T.C. 535 (1964); see also Weller v.            
          Commissioner, 270 F.2d 294, 296 (3d Cir. 1959)(quoting Gregory v.           
          Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935)), affg. 31 T.C. 33 and Emmons           
          v. Commissioner, 31 T.C. 26 (1958), in which the Court of Appeals           
          for the Third Circuit noted that the Supreme Court had refused to           
          give effect to "`an elaborate and devious form of conveyance                
          masquerading'" as a legitimate transaction.  The activities there           
          described were found to be "`a mere device which put on the form            
          * * * as a disguise for concealing its real character'".                    
               Petitioners bear the burden of proving that the challenged             
          transactions were not sham transactions, devoid of economic                 
          substance.  Rule 142(a); Sheldon v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 738,              





Page:  Previous  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011