- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011