- 13 -
Petitioners also make the argument that they “were advised
by their respective professionals that the spin-off of the open
jobs in process for 1992 would be tax-free pursuant to IRC 355"
and it was the “specific intention of the shareholders of * * *
[AJCS] to avoid a taxable transaction”. This argument is not
supported in the record. Petitioners have not shown that AJCS’s
transfer of its contracts qualified as a tax-free reorganization
or spinoff. More importantly, whether AJCS’s transfer of open
jobs in process qualifies as a tax-free reorganization has no
bearing on whether AJCS is entitled to deduct the expenses paid
on behalf of other corporations.
Petitioners also cited several cases without attempting to
analyze the facts and law of those cases and how they apply to
the facts and circumstances in our record. Petitioners cite Mel
Dar Corp. v. Commissioner, 309 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1962), and
Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561 (1978). Those
cases deal with the claim of right doctrine and a sale and
leaseback, respectively. We fail to see the relevance of the
above-referenced cases to the dispute currently before us. In
the absence of any analysis or explanation by petitioners, we
find these case citations unhelpful.
Petitioners also attempted to show that respondent’s
determination is in error by attempting to show that respondent’s
revenue agent’s examination may have been inadequate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011