Joyce Aston - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         

          these entities meet the statutory requirements of a "qualified              
          financial institution", we need not determine the exact location of         
          petitioner's deposit.7                                                      
               Although petitioner concedes that neither BCCI, S.A., its              
          IOMB, nor  its  Los  Angeles  agency  office  satisfy  section              
          165(l)(3)(A), (B), or (C), we nonetheless must examine these                
          provisions to determine the meaning  of  the  term  "similar                
          institution" under section 165(l)(3)(D).                                    
               a.  Not a Bank                                                         
               The first "qualified financial institution" described in               
          subsection 165(l)(3) is a bank.  Section 581 defines a bank as:             
                    a bank or trust company incorporated and doing                    
                    business under the laws of the United States *                    
                    * * or of any State, a substantial part of the                    
                    business of which consists of receiving                           
                    deposits and making loans and discounts, or of                    
                    exercising fiduciary powers similar to those                      
                    permitted to national banks under authority of                    
                    the Comptroller of the Currency, and which is                     
                    subject by law to supervision and examination                     
                    by State, or Federal authority having                             
                    supervision over banking institutions. * * *                      




               7    We also need not determine whether the sec. 165(l)                
          analysis should be applied in this case on an office-by-office              
          basis (as implied by both petitioner's and respondent's                     
          positions) or on an institution-wide basis because in either case           
          we would not hold that petitioner's deposits were maintained in a           
          qualified financial institution.                                            







Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011