- 23 -
of hindsight, investment in Clearwater was an economic sham. In
deciding that the Clearwater transactions were an economic sham,
we stated: "We do not consider whether, in light of hindsight,
the taxpayer made a wise investment, but rather whether he made
any bona fide investment at all or merely purchased tax
deductions."
We went on to consider in detail whether the taxpayer had
made a bona fide investment in Clearwater, and we concluded that
the transactions were a sham, lacking economic substance, in
light of certain objective factors including: (1) The manner in
which the transactions were structured; (2) the lack of arm's-
length dealings; and (3) the discrepancy between the fair market
value and purchase price on which the pass-throughs were based.
In this case, there is a complete failure by petitioners to
prove that the Clearwater transactions were not the circular
transactions found to be an economic sham in Provizer.
Petitioners have not established, or indeed attempted to
establish, that any of the objective criteria considered in
Provizer were in any manner different in their case. Cf. McCrary
v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 827 (1989); Rose v. Commissioner, 88
T.C. 386 (1987), affd. 868 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1989). Neither
have petitioners provided any further evidence or any novel
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011