- 10 - Freeport Transport Inc. v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 107 (1974) (Danielson rule did not apply in circumstances in which both parties to the agreement were before the Court and respondent did not object to the presentation of evidence varying the terms of the agreement); Peterson Machine Tool, Inc. v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 72, 82 (1982) (“in view of the fact that both the buyer and the sellers are parties to this proceeding, there is even less reason to apply the ‘strong proof’ rule”). Thus, this Court may look to the substance of the transaction in order to determine the correct tax consequences. See Hamlin’s Trust v. Commissioner, 209 F.2d 761, 764 (10th Cir. 1954) (“It is well settled that the incidence of taxation depends upon the substance of a transaction * * * that the Government may look at the realities of a transaction and determine its tax consequences despite the form or fiction with which it was clothed.”), affg. 19 T.C. 718 (1953). II. Sale-Leaseback or Financing Arrangement The Guaderramas contend that the documents in this case label the transaction a lease, that they clearly possessed the benefits and burdens of ownership of Severo’s, and therefore the transaction should be viewed as a lease. Benavidez, on the other hand, argues that he possessed the benefits and burdens of ownership of Severo’s and that the transaction should therefore be viewed as a financing arrangement. Respondent also takes thePage: 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