- 58 -
because “for tax reporting and other purposes, * * * [the
taxpayer] consistently treated the transfer as a gift.” Id. at
1431. This Court, pursuant to the doctrine enunciated in Golsen
v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985
(10th Cir. 1971), followed what it perceived to be the principles
established in Comdisco, Inc. v. United States, 756 F.2d 569, 578
(7th Cir. 1985). Nothing in Comdisco, however, makes honest and
consistent respect for the substance of a transaction in tax
reporting and other actions a condition precedent to a taxpayer’s
right to disavow the form of a transaction. Indeed, the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit quoted Estate of Weinert v.
Commissioner, supra at 755, and applied the reasoning and rule
expressed in that case, without expanding or altering the Fifth
Circuit's statement. Comdisco, Inc. v. United States, supra at
578. If honest and consistent respect for the substance of a
transaction were a precondition to a taxpayer’s disavowing the
form of a transaction, the Danielson rule or our own “strong
proof” standard, see, e.g., Meredith Corp. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, supra at 438 (“strong proof” required to show that
an allocation of consideration is other than that specified in a
contract), would be beside the point in any case where such
condition was not met. We have not, however, gone that far, but
have listed the taxpayer’s honest and consistent respect for the
substance of a transaction in tax reporting and other actions as
but one of at least four factors to be considered in determining
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011