- 4 - F.2d 1216 (6th Cir. 1993). The parties have stipulated that the underlying transactions involving the recycling machines (recyclers) in this case are substantially similar to the transactions involving the Sentinel polyethylene (EPE) recyclers considered in Provizer and the Sentinel polystyrene (EPS) recyclers considered in Gottsegen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-314. In a series of simultaneous transactions that for convenience are referred to herein as the SAB Foam transactions, Packaging Industries Group, Inc. (PI), of Hyannis, Massachusetts, manufactured and sold3 four EPS4 recyclers to Ethynol Cogeneration, Inc. (ECI), for $6,080,000 ($1,520,000 per machine). ECI agreed to pay PI $451,000 for the four recyclers at the closing, with the balance of $5,629,000 financed through a 12-year nonrecourse promissory note (ECI note). Each monthly installment on the ECI note was $81,250. 3 Terms such as “sale” and “lease”, as well as their derivatives, are used for convenience only and do not imply that the particular transaction was a sale or lease for Federal tax purposes. Similarly, terms such as “joint venture” and “agreement” are also used for convenience only and do not imply that the particular arrangement was a joint venture or an agreement for Federal tax purposes. 4 In Provizer v. Commissioner, supra, the transaction involved EPE recyclers, but the EPS recycler partnerships and the EPE recycler partnerships are essentially identical. See Davenport Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998- 347, affd. 220 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Gottsegen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-314 (involving both the EPE and the EPS recyclers).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011