- 34 -
[1994] interview that special commissions were represented as
actually dividends. Up to that point, we were under the
impression that there was some type of consulting income going
on.” Furthermore, since no documentation relating to the
transactions ever characterized the payments as dividend income,
and since this treatment was clearly not pursued in the earlier
Israeli examination, we are satisfied that respondent’s challenge
motivated petitioners to advance their present theory.
Lastly, as sole owners of FIL, petitioners did obtain some
benefit or enrichment from the corporation’s deduction, which
left greater funds available for use and distribution.
When we compare these inconsistencies with the situations
presented in cases where taxpayers were precluded from arguing
substance over form, we believe that like treatment is warranted
here. For instance, in Norwest Corp. v. Commissioner, 111 T.C.
at 145-146, 147, we acknowledged that our approach might forsake
the true substance of the transaction but stated: “when a
taxpayer seeks to disavow its own tax return treatment of a
transaction by asserting the priority of substance only after the
Commissioner raises questions with respect thereto, this Court
need not entertain the taxpayer’s assertion of the priority of
substance.” We refused to become embroiled in the taxpayer’s
post-transactional tax planning. See id. at 147. We likewise
opined in Little v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-281, that “when
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011