Union Carbide Foreign Sales Corporation, et al. - Page 26





                                        - 26 -                                         
          Appeals for the Second Circuit was correct, however, it would                
          appear that the approach of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth               
          Circuit was  rejected.  Accordingly, the vitality of the holding             
          in Cleveland Allerton Hotel, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, holding            
          is questionable.19  In spite of these circumstances, petitioner              
          strongly urges that it is entitled to rely on the Cleveland                  
          Allerton Hotel, Inc. holding.20  Further complicating                        
          petitioner’s situation, any appeal of our decision here would be             
          to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit--the “Millinery               
          Ctr. circuit”.  That, of course, militates against petitioner’s              
          chances for success on appeal, because petitioner would have to              



               19 Petitioner has provided only one case with comparable                
          facts and squarely on point that followed Cleveland Allerton                 
          Hotel, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra.  See Troc, Inc. v. United                
          States, 126 F. Supp. 786 (N.D. Ohio 1954).  In that regard, we               
          note that the Troc, Inc. case preceded the Supreme Court’s                   
          opinion in Millinery Ctr. Bldg. Corp. v. Commissioner, 350 U.S.              
          456 (1956) and that it was within the Sixth Circuit Court of                 
          Appeals’ venue.                                                              
               20 Petitioner also relies on Priv. Ltr. Rul. 98-42-006                  
          (June 22, 1998) and Field Service Advice 199918022 (May 7, 1999),            
          both of which were issued subsequent to the transaction in                   
          question and, accordingly, could not have been relied upon.  The             
          administrative discussions give petitioner some solace in their              
          discussions of Cleveland Allerton and the absence of any                     
          discussion of or reliance on sec. 167(c)(2).  Irrespective of the            
          positions or discussions contained in those administrative                   
          documents, they are statutorily of no precedential value.  See               
          sec. 6110(k)(3).  Respondent argues that the cited ruling and                
          advice are distinguishable.  Accordingly, whether the discussion             
          or positions in rulings or internal advice memoranda are                     
          favorable or unfavorable to taxpayers, in the present situation              
          we give them no weight.                                                      





Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011