Andrew G. and Cecilia M. Vajna - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
               or obligation whatsoever that the undersigned now has                  
               or may in the future have the legal right, power, or                   
               capacity to do, exercise, or perform as holder of Four                 
               Hundred and Ninety Nine (499) [or Five Hundred and One                 
               (501) in the proxy to the Mong Family Trust] shares of                 
               the capital stock of Carolco Investments, B.V., a                      
               corporation organized under the laws of The Netherlands                
               (“CIBV”), held by the undersigned, including voting                    
               said shares, granting or withholding consents,                         
               authorizations or demands with respect thereto, and any                
               other action that may be taken by the record and                       
               beneficial owner thereof, with power of substitution                   
               and with full power to act for the undersigned in its                  
               name, place and stead, in the same manner, and to the                  
               same extent and effect, that the undersigned might if                  
               it were personally present and acting.                                 
          Application of Rule 41 Standard in Light of Law and Facts                   
               A.  Presence of Colorable Position                                     
               On the basis of the foregoing, we make the following                   
          observations as regards the potential merit of respondent’s                 
          position.  The disputed portion of respondent’s amended answer              
          aims to tax petitioners under subpart F on a greater percentage             
          of the income received by CIBV.  Resolution of such issue, if it            
          is allowed to be raised, will depend in significant part both on            
          the status of CIBV as a section 957 CFC and on the ownership of             
          CIBV for purposes of the section 951 income allocation rules.               
          Respondent’s revised allegations with respect to these two                  
          elements rest, first, on the claim that Nestor was record owner             
          of 50 percent of CIBV shares after the buyout and, second, on the           
          contention that Nestor’s ownership should be attributed to                  
          petitioners in applying both section 957 and section 951(a).                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011