- 79 -
Andantech-Foreign in order to produce a more favorable tax result.
By channeling the sale and leaseback of the equipment through
Andantech-Foreign, and by using a series of unnecessary exchanges
and transfers, RD Leasing through Andantech-US ended up with a high
basis in the equipment. It would be unreasonable to assume that
the convoluted steps used in this transaction were anything other
than an integrated plan (prearranged by Comdisco and NEFI) to
accomplish tax advantages that could not be accomplished otherwise.
In essence, Comdisco and NEFI changed what would have been the
natural result of a direct purchase of the equipment by engaging in
a series of steps designed from the outset to circumvent the intent
of the Code. Fundamental principles of taxation dictate that “A
given result at the end of a straight path is not made a different
result because reached by following a devious path.” Minn. Tea Co.
v. Helvering, 302 U.S. 609, 613 (1938). Consequently, we (1)
ignore the indirect route of the individual steps, (2) view the
transactions in their entirety, and (3) treat the transaction as
one between Comdisco and NEFI.
Under either the end result test or the interdependence test,
courts will ignore a step in a series of transactions if that step
does not appreciably affect the taxpayer’s beneficial interest
except to reduce his tax. Del Commercial Props., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 251 F.3d 210 (D.C. Cir. 2001). There must be a
purpose for each step other than tax avoidance and the purpose
cannot be a “facade”. Id. at 214. The absence of a valid nontax
Page: Previous 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011