- 54 - and (13) whether the recipient repaid the funds on the due date (Mixon factors). Id.; see also Texas Farm Bureau v. United States, 725 F.2d 307, 311 (5th Cir. 1984); Slappey Drive Indus. Park v. United States, 561 F.2d 572, 582 (5th Cir. 1977); Plantation Patterns, Inc. v. Commissioner, 462 F.2d 712, 718-719 (5th Cir. 1972), affg. T.C. Memo. 1970-182; Tyler v. Tomlinson, 414 F.2d 844, 848 (5th Cir. 1969); Berkowitz v. United States, 411 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1969); Montclair, Inc. v. Commissioner, 318 F.2d 38, 40 (5th Cir. 1963), affg. T.C. Memo. 1962-10; American Offshore, Inc. v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 579, 602 (1991). We decide how much weight to give to each of these factors based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Estate of Mixon v. United States, supra; see John Kelley Co. v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 521, 530 (1946). Our task is not to count factors, but to evaluate them. Slappey Drive Indus. Park v. United States, supra at 581. C. Substance vs. Form A payment for which a taxpayer seeks a deduction must have economic substance. Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935); United States v. Wexler, 31 F.3d 117, 124 (3d Cir. 1994); Krumhorn v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 29, 48 (1994). The substance of a transaction and not the form controls, especially where the nominal debtor and the nominal creditor are jointly controlled. Road Materials, Inc. v. Commissioner, 407 F.2d 1121, 1124 (4th Cir. 1969), affg. on this issue, vacatingPage: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011