- 23 -
employees' relocations. In addition, any risks of loss that
petitioner was subjected to were insignificant in comparison to
the primary motives of petitioner. Petitioner's financial stake
in the residences was limited and consisted of the maintenance
costs and equity payments. Petitioner was indemnified for the
equity payments and maintenance expenses from the proceeds of the
sale to third parties. The residences were generally sold to
third parties within a few months of the contracts of sale, and
maintenance expenses paid by petitioner during that short time
were small in comparison to the residences' value. In addition,
the equity payments were based on the residences' appraised
value. The risk that the residences could not be sold at their
appraised values, although controlled by market conditions, is
insufficient in this setting to reach the conclusion that
petitioner, in substance, became the residences' owner for
Federal tax purposes.
As noted by respondent, relocating employees gave up the
right to use the residences and control their disposition.
Relocating employees had no say in the decision to accept third-
party offers after entering the contracts of sale. Petitioner
acquired control over the disposition of the residences.
Pursuant to the terms of the RSC contract, the RSC had authority
to accept or reject any offer within a specified percentage of
the residences' appraised value. In practice, however, the RSC
consulted with petitioner over whether to accept or reject a
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011