- 13 - 1982); Belz Inv. Co. v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1209 (1979), affd. 661 F.2d 76 (6th Cir. 1981). In examining whether the transaction between the two petitioners was a sale-leaseback or a financing arrangement, we find the following factors to be particularly persuasive: Conveyance of the Liquor License In Helvering v. F.& R. Lazarus & Co., supra, the Supreme Court found a transaction to be a financing arrangement instead of a sale-leaseback in part because the instrument under which the taxpayer purported to convey legal ownership to the bank was in reality given and accepted as security. Here, the conveyance of the liquor license reflects a financing arrangement rather than a bona fide arm’s-length sale. While Benavidez purchased the liquor license for approximately $45,000, the purchase price paid by Guaderrama to Benavidez for the liquor license was only $10. According to Benavidez, liquor licenses in Dona Ana County currently average between $100,000 to $200,000. While we do not necessarily accept Benavidez’ testimony as establishing the worth of a New Mexico liquor license, the fact that Guaderrama was willing to hold it as collateral towards an approximately $272,000 debt indicates that $10 is far from its fair market value. Thus, although legal title of the liquor license may have been transferred to Guaderrama, it was not an arm’s-lengthPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011