- 41 -
export receivables to take effect prior to the close of CVI’s
relevant taxable years. We have considered respondent’s
contentions with respect to the purported defects in the manner
in which the sales were effected but conclude that petitioners
have nonetheless established that sales of the qualified export
receivables occurred prior to the close of the relevant taxable
years.
We next consider whether the funds CVI transferred to CV
that were used to reimburse CV for export promotion expenses
incurred on behalf of CVI pursuant to the export promotion
agreement and to pay dividends to CV continued to be assets of
CVI after the close of CVI's relevant taxable years. Respondent
contends that the transfers of funds to CV from CVI merely
created "open accounts" or receivables of CVI from CV.
Petitioners contend that ownership of the funds passed from CVI
to CV at the time of their transfer. The question whether a
transfer of property effective for Federal income tax purposes
has been made is a question of fact. Danenberg v. Commissioner,
73 T.C. 370, 390 (1979). The test for deciding whether a
transaction is completed is a practical one, and the transaction
must be viewed in its entirety. Morco Corp. v. Commissioner, 300
F.2d at 246. In deciding whether a transfer has been completed,
we rely upon the objective evidence of intent provided by the
overt acts of the parties to the transfer. Pacific Coast Music
Jobbers, Inc. v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. at 874. Similarly, for
Federal tax purposes, the question of whether a debt has been
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011