Estate of Robert G. Kluener, Deceased, Donald E. Hathaway, Co-executor and Charlotte J. Kluener - Page 34

            persuasiveness, as well as its type.  Sec. 1.6662-4(d)(3)(ii),                                
            Income Tax Regs.  A case having some facts in common with the tax                             
            treatment of the item in issue is not particularly relevant if it                             
            is materially distinguishable on its facts or is otherwise                                    
            inapplicable.  Id.                                                                            
                  In the instant case, petitioners contend that substantial                               
            authority exists for treating APECO, rather than Mr. Kluener, as                              
            the seller of the horses.  Petitioners contend that the                                       
            transaction involving the horses complied with the express                                    
            provisions of the relevant Code sections and that there was a                                 
            business purpose for the transfer of the horses.  Literal                                     
            compliance with the provisions of the Code, however, is not alone                             
            sufficient to sustain the form in which a transaction is cast                                 
            where the form lacks a nontax, business purpose and simply                                    
            disguises the true nature of the transaction.  Commissioner v.                                
            Court Holding Co., supra at 334; Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S.                               
            465, 469 (1935).  We have found above that petitioners have not                               
            shown that there was a nontax, business purpose for the                                       
            transaction in issue.  The authorities relied on by petitioners,                              
            Smalley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1973-85, and Caruth v. United                             
            States, 688 F. Supp. 1129 (N.D. Tex. 1987), are substantially                                 
            distinguishable on their facts.                                                               
                  Accordingly, we conclude that petitioners have failed to                                
            show that there was substantial authority for the items giving                                
            rise to the understatement in issue and that the understatement                               
            is substantial.  Consequently, we sustain respondent's                                        




Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011