- 18 -
savings, but the objective facts belie petitioner's assertions.
The ADR transaction was marketed to petitioner by Twenty-First
for the purpose of partially shielding a capital gain previously
realized on the sale of Conner Peripherals stock. Petitioner's
evaluation of the proposed transaction was less than businesslike
with Tempesta, a well-educated, experienced, and financially
sophisticated businessman, committing petitioner to this
multimillion-dollar transaction based on one meeting with Twenty-
First and on his call to a Twenty-First reference. As a whole,
the record indicates and we conclude that petitioner was
motivated by the expected tax benefits of the ADR transaction,
and no other business purpose existed.
Petitioner also contends that the ADR transaction does not
warrant the application of the economic substance doctrine
because the foreign tax credit regime completely sets forth
Congress' intent as to allowable foreign tax credits. Petitioner
argues that an additional economic substance requirement was not
intended by Congress and should not be applied in this case.
Congress creates deductions and credits to encourage certain
types of activities, and the taxpayers who engage in those
activities are entitled to the attendant benefits. See, e.g.,
Leahy v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 56, 72 (1986); Fox v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 1001, 1021 (1984). The foreign tax credit
serves to prevent double taxation and to facilitate international
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011