- 36 -
return.
In addition to failing to establish that petitioner made
Price Waterhouse aware of the provisions of the guarantee and
assignment agreement that would apply if the disputed transaction
were effected, on the record before us, we find that petitioner
has failed to establish that it made Price Waterhouse aware at
the time Price Waterhouse was advising petitioner about the
disputed transaction or at the time Price Waterhouse was prepar-
ing petitioner’s 1993 return that steps 4 and 5 (i.e., peti-
tioner’s relending $20 million to ITC and ITC’s using that $20
million to repay the $20 million that it borrowed from Royal Bank
on June 30, 1993) were to, and did, take place on the next
Canadian bank business day (i.e., July 2, 1993)21 after June 30,
1993, the date on which steps 1, 2, and 3 were effected (i.e.,
ITC’s purportedly borrowing $20 million from Royal Bank to make a
payment to petitioner on an outstanding loan from petitioner to
ITC, the purported issuance of ITC’s preferred stock to peti-
tioner in exchange for that $20 million, and ITC’s purported
redemption of that preferred stock for that $20 million).
Not only did petitioner not provide Price Waterhouse all the
necessary information regarding the disputed transaction, on the
record before us, we find that petitioner failed to follow the
advice that Price Waterhouse gave it based upon the information
21July 1, 1993, was a bank holiday in Canada.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011