- 96 -
in order to realize profit, or that its activities
constituted a business which * * * [the trusts] carried
on within the United States. * * * [Id. at 59; fn.
ref. omitted.]
The Court observed that, with respect to cases involving a
determination of whether or not a taxpayer is "engaged in trade
or business within the United States", "it is a matter of degree,
based upon both a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of the
services performed, as to where the line of demarcation should be
drawn." Id. The Court concluded that "It is not so much the
volume of the activities of the Jersey City office, although
volume of activities may, in some cases, be a factor, but rather
their character and the purpose for which the office is
established that we believe are determinative." Id. The Court
stated:
We are not convinced that the services of this local
office, quantitatively extensive and useful as they may
have been, approached that quality which is necessary
in order that * * * [the trusts] can be characterized
as having engaged in business in the United States
during the years involved within the meaning of section
231(b). * * * [Id.]
The facts in the instant case are distinguishable from those
in Scottish American. In Scottish American, the trusts’ office
in the United States did not effect the trusts’ trading; the
trusts’ orders for purchases and sales of securities "were sent
directly from Scotland to resident brokers in the United States."
Id. at 56. The trusts’ resident brokers were also their resident
banks, J.P. Morgan & Co. and the National City Bank of New York.
Page: Previous 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011