ACM Partnership, Southampton-Hamilton Company, Tax Matters Partner - Page 22

                                       - 110 -                                        
          period, this advantage would have resulted in $58,000 more income           
          for the partnership and less than $10,000 more income for                   
          Colgate.  In short, any yield advantage that the Citicorp Notes             
          may have offered over less costly alternatives would not                    
          significantly have improved Colgate's prospects for recovering              
          the $2-3 million present value of transaction costs that it                 
          expected to incur in connection with the section 453 investment             
          strategy.  Accordingly, we reject petitioner's third contention.            
               We conclude that the partnership did not undertake the                 
          section 453 investment strategy with a reasonable expectation               
          that it would be profitable, on a pretax basis, for Colgate.  We            
          also conclude that the strategy was not pursued with a realistic            
          expectation of realizing an economic profit for ABN.                        
          Petitioner's expert, Beder, concedes that the expected rate of              
          return in an environment with a 50-percent probability on a                 
          rising rate and a 50-percent probability on a falling rate would            
          only equal 2.3 percent.  Moreover, as the excerpt from Pepe's               
          testimony quoted above confirmed, the agreed allocation of                  
          transaction costs reflected the fact that ABN did not expect to             
          derive any significant profit from the strategy.  To the extent             
          that interest on the Citicorp Notes may have exceeded the                   
          interest that could be earned on money market instruments, Kannex           
          would have shared in this premium pro rata, but given the short             
          holding period, the accumulation would not have been significant.           






Page:  Previous  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011