The Limited, Inc. - Page 35




                                       - 35 -                                         
          effect to the dividend equivalence theory that underlies the                
          repatriation provision.13  If we find that the purchase of the              
          MFE N.V. CDs amounts to the use of the earnings of a controlled             
          corporation by a U.S. shareholder, we believe that such purchase            
          must be regarded as an increase of earnings invested in U.S.                
          property (and not a section 956 deposit).                                   
               On January 28, 1993, MFE N.V. purchased the (eight) MFE N.V.           
          CDs from WFNNB for $174.9 million,  Each CD was for a term of               
          1 year, showed an annual interest rate of 3.1 percent, and                  
          provided that it was a “nonnegotiable and nontransferable time              


          13   Petitioner argues that a limitation of the sec. 956 deposits           
          exception to unrelated-party deposits would render that exception           
          "superfluous" in light of sec. 956(b)(2)(F).  According to                  
          petitioner, because sec. 956(b)(2)(F) permits a controlled                  
          foreign corporation's earnings to escape U.S. taxation when                 
          invested in the obligations of an unrelated U.S. corporation, it            
          would serve no purpose to interpret the sec. 956 deposits                   
          exception as accomplishing the same result with respect to                  
          obligations in the form of deposits with a domestic corporation             
          carrying on the banking business.  The sec. 956(b)(2)(A)                    
          exception, however, applies to "deposits with persons carrying on           
          the banking business", whereas the sec. 956(b)(2)(F) exception              
          applies to "obligations of a domestic corporation."  A person               
          carrying on the banking business need not be a corporation.  See,           
          e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 167, sec. 1 (1997) defining "Bank"           
          to include "any individuals, association, partnership or                    
          corporation * * * doing a banking business in the commonwealth";            
          see also N.D. Cent. Code sec. 6-01-02 (1995) defining the terms             
          "banking association" and "state banking association" to include            
          "limited liability companies, partnerships, firms, or                       
          associations whose business in whole or in part consists of the             
          taking of money on deposit".  Although our interpretation of the            
          sec. 956 deposits exception narrows its scope, we conclude that             
          it cannot be interpreted to permit deposits by controlled foreign           
          corporations with a related person carrying on the banking                  
          business to go untaxed and still remain consistent with the clear           
          overall legislative intent to tax investments in related U.S.               
          persons.                                                                    




Page:  Previous  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011