- 31 -
did not attach Form 8275 to petitioner’s 1993 return as required
by section 1.6662-4(f)(1) and (2), Income Tax Regs., and (2) the
October 11, 1996 disclosure letter failed to provide information
that reasonably could have been expected to apprise the IRS of
the nature of the controversy or potential controversy that the
disputed transaction raised. Petitioner does not dispute respon-
dent’s position concerning petitioner’s failure to attach Form
8275 to petitioner’s 1993 return, but disputes respondent’s
position concerning the October 11, 1996 disclosure letter.
According to respondent, the October 11, 1996 disclosure
letter failed to disclose that
the purported dividend was “paid” solely to generate
deemed foreign tax credits, the funds to “pay” the
“dividend” were furnished by RBC [Royal Bank], the
“dividend” was prearranged to be and was returned by
petitioner to ITC the next business day, etc. * * *
Petitioner counters that the October 11, 1996 disclosure
letter qualifies as a qualified amended return under Revenue
Procedure 94-69 because it contained information that reasonably
could have been expected to apprise the IRS of the nature of the
controversy or potential controversy that the disputed transac-
tion raised. According to petitioner, the October 11, 1996
disclosure letter
disclosed the preferred stock redemption, its treatment
of the proceeds of the redemption, the amount of the
proceeds, and the fact that Respondent was currently
challenging Petitioner’s characterization of a prior
ITC preferred stock redemption.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011