United Parcel Service of America - Page 16




                                       - 105 -                                        

          substance or business purpose.58  Petitioner controlled and                 
          performed all activities and functions that resulted in EVC                 
          revenue.  The EVC profits that were transferred to OPL for the              
          benefit of petitioner's and OPL's shareholders were the fruition            
          of petitioner's EVC activity.  OPL provided nothing of value to             
          petitioner.  The purpose of the arrangement with NUF and OPL was            
          to confer tax-free benefits on petitioner's and OPL's                       
          shareholders.  Obviously, petitioner is not entitled to any                 
          deductions for profits transferred to OPL.  As a result,                    
          petitioner must include EVC revenue in income for 1984 and is               
          liable for tax on the resulting profits.59                                  


               58In arriving at our finding, we recognize that some of                
          petitioner's witnesses testified that they considered State                 
          insurance regulation and other nontax considerations to be                  
          reasons for restructuring petitioner's EVC program.  We have                
          fully considered that testimony, the demeanor of the witnesses,             
          and the statements they made before trial (in both                          
          contemporaneous documents and interviews) in addition to the                
          aforementioned matters discussed in the text.  In the final                 
          analysis, we do not believe that nontax business considerations             
          were the reasons that motivated petitioner.                                 
               59Because we have held that petitioner's arrangement with              
          NUF and OPL was an assignment of income and a sham, we do not               
          reach the issue of whether an allocation must be made under sec.            
          482 or 845.  Petitioner makes no argument that a sec. 482                   
          analysis should be preferred over an assignment of income                   
          analysis.  Nevertheless, we are aware that several court opinions           
          appear to have expressed a general preference for application of            
          a sec. 482 analysis over the assignment of income analysis.  We             
          believe those opinions are distinguishable because the facts in             
          the instant case are both "more extreme" and "heavily freighted             
          with tax motives".  Cf. Foglesong v. Commissioner, 621 F.2d 865             
          (7th Cir. 1980), revg. and remanding T.C. Memo. 1976-294; Rubin             
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011