- 10 -
find that petitioner has not carried its burden of showing that
the all events test was satisfied during the taxable year.
Issue 2. Related Party Objection to the Deduction
The parties dispute what kind of business entity AA&H was
and how great Mr. Aydin's ownership interest in it was.
Respondent claims AA&H is Mr. Aydin's sole proprietorship.
Petitioner claims that AA&H is a Turkish business entity, of
unspecified nature, which operated as petitioner's agent in the
Republic of Turkey as a "ghost company" (trading in Turkey with
an address and attorney in Turkey), in which Mr. Aydin held a 25-
percent interest with an option to purchase an additional 12.5-
percent.
AA&H is either a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or a
corporation. The record does not enable us to determine which of
these it is.4 If AA&H were a sole proprietorship, then it would
be identical for tax purposes with Mr. Aydin, who, as a resident
3(...continued)
petitioner, sec. 382 renders petitioner unable to claim a net
operating loss deduction for any such carryover. Cf. Berry
Petroleum Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 584 (1995).
4Turkey has the panoply of forms of business enterprise
characteristic of civil law systems, including corporations
(Anonim �irketler), limited liability companies (Limited
�irketler), general partnerships (Kollektif �irketler), limited
partnerships (Komandit �irketler), and sole proprietorships.
Schneider & Bilgen, Foreign Investment Laws in the Republic of
Turkey: A Model for Reform, 5 Transnatl. Law. 99, 116-117
(1992). Mr. Aydin testified to AA&H's being a "ghost company",
but we have no way of knowing to which of these forms that
characterization would correspond.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011