Framatome Connectors USA, Inc. - Page 24




                                       - 24 -                                         
          percentage ownership of stock having 50 percent or less of the              
          voting power.                                                               
               Petitioners contend that those cases support their position            
          that Burndy had more than 50 percent of the voting power and                
          value of stock of Burndy-Japan.  We disagree.  The Government               
          prevailed in those cases by relying on section 1.957-1(b)(2),               
          Income Tax Regs., and by invoking the doctrine of substance over            
          form.  That doctrine generally allows the Commissioner to                   
          recharacterize a transaction according to its substance but does            
          not allow a taxpayer to disavow a transactional form of the                 
          taxpayer’s own choosing.  See Commissioner v. Natl. Alfalfa                 
          Dehydrating & Milling Co., 417 U.S. 134, 149 (1974); Commissioner           
          v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331, 334 (1945); Gray v. Powell,             
          314 U.S. 402, 414 (1941); Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473, 477               
          (1940); Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935); Nestle                   
          Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner, 152 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1998),             
          affg. in part and revg. in part on other issues and remanding               
          T.C. Memo. 1995-441.  Generally, the Commissioner, not the                  
          taxpayer, can assert the doctrine of substance over form.  See              
          Higgins v. Smith, supra; Founders Gen. Corp. v. Hoey, 300 U.S.              
          268, 275 (1937); Gregory v. Helvering, supra at 469; Old Mission            
          Portland Cement Co. v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 289, 293 (1934);                 
          Television Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 284 F.2d 322, 325 (2d              
          Cir. 1960), affg. 32 T.C. 1297 (1959); Interlochen Co. v.                   






Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011