- 66 -
therefore argues that the transactions between Parthenon and
petitioners were in the nature of self-insurance. We are unable
to reach such a conclusion and, furthermore, are persuaded that
the lack of choice plays no role in deciding whether the policies
between Parthenon and its sister subsidiaries constituted
insurance as commonly understood in the industry. The policies
covered typical insurance risks, including medical malpractice,
property damages, and workers' compensation liability. HCA,
moreover, had a legitimate business reason for requiring the
sister subsidiaries to acquire insurance from Parthenon.
Additionally, we find no merit to respondent's contention
that the sister subsidiaries merely held legal title to the
hospitals they owned and therefore played no part in the
insurance relationship between Parthenon and those hospitals.
Respondent's position would have us, in effect, ignore the
separate existence of the sister subsidiaries even though
respondent agrees that they were formed and operated for
legitimate business purposes and should be recognized as separate
corporate entities. We find no basis in fact or law for doing
so. See Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 436
(1943).
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011