- 9 - were among the deductions whose deductibility was decided in a test case. Finkelman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-72. The major issue considered in Finkelman involved the tax consequences of leveraged real estate transactions. The focus of the Court's inquiry was whether the transactions should be disregarded for Federal income tax purposes because they lacked economic substance and/or were primarily tax motivated. The Court determined that the transactions were lacking in economic substance and profit objective and, accordingly, were not to be respected for tax purposes. Although the deductions were not allowed, the Court declined to sustain the section 6653(a) negligence additions to tax against the promoter. In so holding, the Court explained that the taxpayer's favorable financing argument was not an "untenable" theory, that it had "some support in the case law", and that "the claimed losses were supported by a credible and unprecedented (albeit erroneous) theory". Petitioner claims that the holding in Finkelman that the transactions lacked economic substance and that there was no profit objective mandates the conclusion that the deductions can have no basis in law. We cannot agree with petitioner. The Court in Finkelman acknowledged that, although the transactions were not reasonable, "That does not, however, render petitioner's theory untenable." Finkelman v. Commissioner, supra. Despite the Court's rejection of the taxpayer's arguments in that case, they were "not without some support in the casePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011