Northern Telecom Inc. & Subsidiaries - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         

          of a consolidated group should be based on dealings with                    
          outsiders rather than on transactions within the group.  See id.            
               Section 1.1502-13(a)(2), Income Tax Regs., defines a                   
          “deferred intercompany transaction” to include the sale or                  
          exchange of property or any other expenditure in which the amount           
          of the expenditure is capitalized in an intercompany transaction.           
          An intercompany transaction includes:                                       
               [A] transaction during a consolidated return year                      
               between corporations which are members of the same                     
               group immediately after such transaction.  Thus, for                   
               example, an intercompany transaction would include a                   
               sale of property by one member of a group (hereinafter                 
               referred to as the “selling member”) to another member                 
               of the same group (“purchasing member”), the                           
               performance of services by one member of a group * * *                 
               for another member of the same group * * *, or the                     
               payment of interest by one member of a group * * * to                  
               another member of the same group * * *, during a                       
               consolidated return year.  [Sec. 1.1502-13(a)(1)(i),                   
               Income Tax Regs.; emphasis added.]                                     
               Respondent argues that petitioner did not have ownership               
          rights in the telephone systems as the systems were being                   
          produced.  Instead, respondent asserts that the rights of the               
          third-party customers in the telephone systems were superior to             
          those of petitioner during the period of production because of              
          the commitments under the purchase agreements.  Respondent                  
          contends that petitioner was never free to sell the telephone               
          systems to the subsidiary or anyone else.  Thus, respondent                 
          argues that the third-party customers were the source of the                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011