InterTAN, Inc. - Page 27

                                       - 27 -                                         
               With respect to respondent’s position that the disputed                
          transaction is a tax shelter within the meaning of section                  
          6662(d)(2)(C)(ii), petitioner argues that the disputed transac-             
          tion did not have any of the common indicia of a tax shelter                
          (e.g., marketing by a promoter, dissemination of a confidential             
          prospectus, and a special fee or premium paid to a promoter).               
          According to petitioner, the disputed transaction was nothing               
          more than normal dividend planning that was typical of multina-             
          tional companies like petitioner.                                           
               We need not resolve the parties’ dispute over whether the              
          disputed transaction is a tax shelter within the meaning of                 
          section 6662(d)(2)(C)(ii).  That is because, assuming arguendo              
          that we were to accept petitioner’s argument and find that the              
          disputed transaction is not a tax shelter under that section, on            
          the record before us, we accept respondent’s alternative position           
          that petitioner is nonetheless liable for the accuracy-related              
          penalty under section 6662(a).                                              
               With respect to respondent’s argument under respondent’s               
          alternative position that there is and was no substantial author-           
          ity for petitioner’s tax treatment of the disputed transaction,             
          petitioner counters that its reporting of the disputed transac-             
          tion in petitioner’s 1993 return “was mandated by the provisions            
          of Code �� 301 and 302.”  On the record before us, we reject                
          petitioner’s position.                                                      






Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011