- 20 - rejection of respondent's yield argument does not, however, end our inquiry. Petitioner concedes that, if the discount is taken into account, the yield is 7.57484 percent, which is more than sufficient to constitute a materially higher yield than the 6 percent yield on the proposed bonds.8 Petitioner contends, however, that the discount should not be taken into account and that the proper yield for purposes of comparison is the 4.25- percent interest rate on the City Obligation. We disagree. If the discount is not taken into account, one is faced with a most peculiar situation, namely, a borrowing at 6-percent interest to pay off an obligation bearing 4.25-percent interest. It is only because of the discount that the prepayment and the financing thereof at a 6-percent interest rate make any sense. Indeed, that is the clear foundation of the transactions and the substantive justification for the prepayment. In sum, we hold that, however one views the transactions involved herein, a principal purpose of the City was to replace the City Obligation with a payment for an investment in the State A materially higher yield, with exceptions not applicable herein, is a yield one-eighth of 1 percentage point greater than that of the issue in question. Sec. 1.148-2(d)(2), Income Tax Regs.; Staff of the Joint Comm. on Taxation, General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, at 1201-1202 (J. Comm. Print 1987).Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011