Advanced Delivery and Chemical Systems Nevada, Inc. - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
          because the facts and circumstances indicated that at all times             
          the corporation had effective control over the subsidiary).                 
               Petitioner contends that the activities of ADCS-Limited and            
          of ADCS-Korea should be attributed to it and that it therefore              
          should not be treated as a mere holding company.                            
               Respondent argues that petitioner did not engage in business           
          activities of its own, that petitioner merely collected income              
          from its affiliated entities whose activities should not be                 
          attributed to petitioner, and that petitioner should be regarded            
          as a mere holding company.                                                  
               Respondent argues further that section 1.537-3(b), Income              
          Tax Regs., should not be applied to attribute to petitioner the             
          business activities of ADCS-Limited because petitioner’s                    
          ownership interest in ADCS-Limited was tiered rather than direct,           
          and because section 1.537-3(b), Income Tax Regs., according to              
          respondent, applies only to controlled corporate subsidiaries and           
          not to controlled partnerships.  As a reason for not allowing the           
          activities of ADCS-Limited and of ADCS-Korea to be attributed to            
          petitioner, respondent cites to Commissioner v. Natl. Alfalfa               
          Dehydrating & Milling Co., 417 U.S. 134, 149 (1974), and to the             
          general rule that taxpayers are held to the form of their                   
          transactions.                                                               
               Petitioner counters with the argument that the clear intent            
          and effect of section 1.537-3(b), Income Tax Regs., is that                 






Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011