Dwight E. and Leslie E. Lee - Page 8

                                                - 8 -                                                 
            Treasury bill (or T-Bill) by selling the T-Bill to another party                          
            with an agreement to repurchase the T-Bill, for the original                              
            selling price plus interest, on or before the T-Bill's maturity                           
            date.  We observed that the transactions were designed so that                            
            the interest that the taxpayer paid in repurchasing the T-Bill                            
            was greater than the interest actually paid by the T-Bill during                          
            the period the repo was in effect.  We found that the repo                                
            transactions were without substance beyond the anticipated tax                            
            consequences of generating interest deductions.  Citing                                   
            Goldstein, we explained that "loans or other financing                                    
            transactions will merit respect and give rise to deductible                               
            interest only if there is some tax-independent purpose for the                            
            transactions."  Sheldon v. Commissioner, supra at 759.3                                   
                  These cases present the issue of the deductibility of                               
            interest in FTI A/C transactions.  In these transactions, the                             
            investors borrowed money which was used to buy gold.  Their                               
            investments were "hedged" by alleged trades in options for U.S.                           
            Treasury obligations.  The transactions generated interest and                            
            other deductions.  The investors recovered their investment in                            


                  3  In Sheldon v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 738, 767 (1990), we                          
            noted that some of the transactions at issue presented "a small                           
            potential for gain".  We nonetheless found Goldstein v.                                   
            Commissioner, 364 F.2d 734 (2d Cir. 1966), affg. 44 T.C. 284                              
            (1965), dispositive, stating:  "The principle of that case would                          
            not * * * permit deductions merely because a taxpayer had or                              
            experienced some de minimis gain."  Sheldon v. Commissioner,                              
            supra at 767; see Lifschultz v. Commissioner, 393 F.2d 232 (2d                            
            Cir. 1968), affg. T.C. Memo. 1966-225.                                                    




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011