Norwest Corporation and Subsidiaries, Successor in Interest to United Banks of Colorado, Inc., and Subsidiaries, et al. - Page 55

                                       - 55 -                                         
          31 T.C. 918 (1959); Estate of Durkin v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 561           
          (1992), supplementing T.C. Memo. 1992-325; Illinois Power Co. v.            
          Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1417 (1986).                                          
                    3.  Analysis                                                      
                    a.  Introduction                                                  
               The terms of the various agreements that constitute the 1988           
          Atrium Transaction are unambiguous, and we so find.  Indeed,                
          petitioner does not argue to the contrary.  Rather, petitioner              
          contends that “[t]he issue in this case is the characterization,            
          for Federal income tax purposes, of a transaction that is cast in           
          form as a sale-leaseback, but in which the rights created are               
          those of a borrower and a lender.”  This Court must determine as            
          a threshold matter, however, whether petitioner may disavow the             
          form of the 1988 Atrium Transaction.                                        
                    b.  The Danielson Rule Does Not Apply                             
               In Commissioner v. Danielson, supra, the Court of Appeals              
          for the Third Circuit held that certain taxpayers were precluded            
          from challenging for tax purposes the terms of certain agreements           
          that made purchase price allocations to covenants not to compete.           
          The court enunciated the so-called Danielson rule:                          
               a party can challenge the tax consequences of his                      
               agreement as construed by the Commissioner only by                     
               adducing proof which in an action between the parties                  
               to the agreement would be admissible to alter that                     
               construction or to show its unenforceability because of                
               mistake, undue influence, fraud, duress, etc.  * * *                   
               [Id. at 775.]                                                          
          Even assuming, arguendo, that the Danielson rule applies in cases           




Page:  Previous  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011