Stephen H. Glassley and Judith Glassley, et al. - Page 55

                                       - 55 -                                         
          293 U.S. 465 (1935).  The objective economic realities of a                 
          transaction control the tax consequences of a given transaction             
          rather than the particular form the parties employed.  E.g.,                
          Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, supra at 572-573; Commissioner             
          v. Court Holding Co., supra at 334; Estate of Franklin v.                   
          Commissioner, 64 T.C. 752 (1975), affd. on other grounds 544 F.2d           
          1045 (9th Cir. 1976).  As the Court of Appeals for the Seventh              
          Circuit has noted:                                                          
               The freedom to arrange one's affairs to minimize taxes                 
               does not include the right to engage in financial                      
               fantasies with the expectation that the Internal                       
               Revenue Service and the courts will play along.  The                   
               Commissioner and the courts are empowered, and in fact                 
               duty-bound, to look beyond the contrived forms of                      
               transactions to their economic substance and to apply                  
               the tax laws accordingly.  [Saviano v. Commissioner,                   
               765 F.2d 643, 654 (7th Cir. 1985), affg. 80 T.C. 955                   
               (1983).]                                                               
               After reviewing the record in the instant cases, we agree in           
          substance with respondent that JDP did not pay the $360,000                 
          contract fee for research or experimentation to be conducted by             
          HJI on JDP's behalf.  Rather, for the reasons discussed below, we           
          conclude that the moneys JDP remitted to HJI for the putative               
          research or experimentation, in actuality, were paid for the                
          limited partners' right to participate in the jojoba farming                
          enterprise being operated by HJI in Hyder, Arizona.  We are                 
          convinced that, from the inception of JDP, rather than being a              
          stand-alone operation, Turtleback I functioned and was viewed as            
          part of one integrated jojoba farming operation conducted by HJI.           





Page:  Previous  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011