- 71 -
not involve a series of transactions spanning several years).
Because the transactions in the present case do not span a long
period of time or involve a binding commitment to pursue successive
steps, we do not analyze them under the binding commitment test.
Thus, in this case, only the end result and interdependence tests
are relevant to our step transaction analysis.
b. End Result Test
We now turn to the application of the end result test. The
end result test combines into a single transaction separate events
that appear to be components of something undertaken to reach a
particular result. Kornfeld v. Commissioner, 137 F.3d 1231, 1235
(10th Cir. 1998), affg. T.C. Memo. 1996-472; Associated Wholesale
Grocers, Inc. v. United States, supra at 1523. Under the end
result test, if we find that a series of closely related steps in
a transaction is merely the means to reach a particular end result,
we will not separate the steps but instead will treat them as a
single transaction. King Enters., Inc. v. United States, 189 Ct.
Cl. 466, 418 F.2d 511, 516 (1969); see also Helvering v. Ala.
Asphaltic Limestone Co., 315 U.S. 179 (1942); Morgan Manufacturing
Co v. Commissioner, 124 F.2d 602 (4th Cir. 1941), affg. 44 B.T.A.
691 (1941); Heintz v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 132 (1955); Ericsson
Screw Mach. Prods. Co. v. Commissioner, 14 T.C. 757 (1950).
The end result test focuses upon the actual intent of the
parties as of the time of the transaction. It is flexible and
bases tax consequences on the substance of the transaction, not on
Page: Previous 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011