- 56 -
where a taxpayer attempts to disavow the form of a sale-leaseback
transaction, this Court would not apply the rule in this
particular case. This Court has declined to adopt the Danielson
rule, see, e.g., Coleman v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 178, 202 n.17
(1986); Elrod v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1046, 1065 (1986),11 affd.
without published opinion 833 F.2d 303 (3d Cir. 1987), and does
not apply the rule unless appeal in the particular case lies to a
Court of Appeals that has explicitly adopted the rule, see
Meredith Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 406, 439-440
(1994). The parties agree that appeal in this case will lie to
the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The position of
that court with respect to the Danielson rule is unclear, see id.
at 440 (discussing Molasky v. Commissioner, 897 F.2d 334 (8th
Cir. 1990), affg. in part, revg. in part and remanding T.C. Memo.
1988-173), and, therefore, we shall not apply the Danielson rule
in this case.
c. Respondent’s Weinert Rule
Respondent argues that, apart from the Danielson rule, a
rule that originated in Estate of Weinert v. Commissioner, 294
F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1961), revg. and remanding 31 T.C. 918 (1959),
precludes petitioner “from disavowing the form of the Atrium
sale/leaseback because the taxpayer's actions do not reflect an
honest and consistent respect for the transaction's putative
11 We decline respondent's invitation to reconsider our
position and to adopt the rule.
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011