Lauro G. and Gayle W. Guaderrama - Page 9




                                         - 9 -                                           
          affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), in cases appealable to the                
          Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit or other circuits which                 
          have adopted Danielson.  Since the Court of Appeals for the Tenth              
          Circuit, to which this case is appealable absent stipulation to                
          the contrary, has not explicitly adopted Danielson, we decline to              
          apply that standard here.5                                                     
               In this case, one, namely petitioner Benavidez, of two                    
          competing petitioners and respondent both seek to ignore the                   
          transactional form.  We have observed that “the taxpayer may have              
          less freedom than the Commissioner to ignore the transactional                 
          form that he has adopted.”  Bolger v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 760,               
          767 n.4 (1973); Coleman v. Commissioner, supra at 202.  The                    
          strong proof doctrine, however, is not applied to the                          
          Government’s attack on the form of a transaction.  The present                 
          case is a consolidated proceeding, and each petitioner is                      
          litigating against the Government.  Because the form of the                    
          transaction in this case is being attacked by the Government, and              
          because both the “lessor” and “lessee” are parties to this                     
          proceeding, the strong proof doctrine is not applicable.  Cf.                  

               5 The Guaderramas cite Munroe v. Commissioner, 961 F.2d 220               
          (10th Cir. 1992), as standing for the proposition that the Court               
          of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has adopted Commissioner v.                   
          Danielson, supra.  Munroe, however, simply references Danielson                
          in a string citation and does not explicitly adopt the standard                
          enunciated in Danielson.  Further, Munroe is an unpublished order              
          of the Court of Appeals which specifically states that it has no               
          precedential value.  Thus, we do not read Munroe as adopting                   
          Danielson.                                                                     





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