- 22 -                                         
               Accordingly, we hold that petitioner has not carried its               
          burden of showing that the substance of the transaction was                 
          different from its form.  Elrod v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1046,              
          1066 (1986); Pritchett v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 149, 171 (1974)             
          (citing Ullman v. Commissioner, 264 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1959),                
          affg. 29 T.C. 129 (1957)); Estate of Durkin v. Commissioner, T.C.           
          Memo. 1992-325, supplemented by 99 T.C. 561, 572 (1992); see also           
          Estate of Corbett v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-255.                     
               Consistent with our holding, the Court of Appeals for the              
          Ninth Circuit (the circuit in which this case would be                      
          appealable) has held, in certain instances, that taxpayers may              
          not cast a transaction in one form, file returns consistent with            
          that form, and then argue for an alternative tax treatment after            
          their returns are audited.  See Investors Ins. Agency, Inc. v.              
          Commissioner, 677 F.2d 1328, 1330 (9th Cir. 1982), affg. 72 T.C.            
          1027 (1979); McManus v. Commissioner, 583 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir.           
          1978) ("A taxpayer is estopped from later denying the status he             
          claimed on his tax returns."), affg. 65 T.C. 197 (1975);                    
          Parkside, Inc. v. Commissioner, 571 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1977),              
          revg. T.C. Memo. 1975-14; In re Steen, 509 F.2d 1398, 1402-1403             
          n.4 (9th Cir. 1975); Demirjian v. Commissioner, 457 F.2d 1, 5               
          n.19 (3d Cir. 1972), affg. 54 T.C. 1691 (1970).                             
               In its tax and financial reporting and other actions,                  
          petitioner has not demonstrated an honest and consistent respect            
Page:  Previous   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011