- 56 -
of the transaction accordingly by comparing the cash pay-
ment made by the Roscrea Trust, $954,000, with the maximum
amount that the unitholders could expect to recoup,
$427,179.
An analysis similar to our analysis in Robertson I
was made by the Court in Gilman v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1989-684, affd. 933 F.2d 143 (2d Cir. 1991). Gilman
involved a sale-leaseback of computer equipment that was
held to lack economic substance. In holding that the
transaction did not offer a reasonable opportunity for
economic profit exclusive of tax benefits, the Court made
the following analogy:
In essence, petitioner claims to have purchased a
Christmas tree, but actually only purchased the
right to hang some ornaments on a tree that was
already in place and serving its full useful and
economic purpose, and to take possession of the
tree after the Christmas holidays.
See also Estate of Strober v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-350, where the Court makes the same analysis and
quotes extensively from Gilman v. Commissioner, supra.
For the reasons stated above, we sustain respondent's
determination of the additions to tax under section 6653
(a)(1) and (2) for negligence or intentional disregard of
rules or regulations and the additions to tax under section
6661(a) for substantial understatement of income tax.
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