Bernice M. and Stanley M. Ulanoff - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         

          facts concerning the underlying transactions that were described            
          in Provizer v. Commissioner, supra.                                         
               The transactions involving the Sentinel EPE recyclers leased           
          by Plymouth are substantially identical to the transactions                 
          involving the same type of recyclers leased by                              
          Clearwater Group (Clearwater), the partnership that was involved            
          in Provizer v. Commissioner, supra.3                                        
               In transactions closely resembling those in the Provizer               
          case, Packaging Industries of Hyannis, Massachusetts (PI)                   
          manufactured and sold seven Sentinel EPE recyclers to ECI                   
          Corporation (ECI) for $981,000 each.  PI manufactures                       
          thermoplastic and other types of packaging machinery, as well as            
          energy saving devices.  ECI, in turn, resold the recyclers to F&G           
          Corporation (F&G) for $1,162,667 each.  F&G then leased the                 
          recyclers to Plymouth, which licensed the recyclers to FMEC                 
          Corporation (FMEC), which sublicensed them back to PI.                      
               The sales of the recyclers from PI to ECI were financed with           
          nonrecourse notes.  Approximately 7 percent of the sales price of           
          the recyclers sold by ECI to F&G was paid in cash, with the                 
          remainder financed through notes.  These notes provided that 10             
          percent of the notes were recourse but that the recourse portion            



               3  Terms such as lease, sale, license, and their derivatives           
          are used solely for convenience, and their use in this Opinion              
          should not be understood to imply that the transactions described           
          herein constitute leases, sales, or licenses for Federal tax                
          purposes.                                                                   



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011