- 13 -
not squarely on point and Golsen rule inapplicable), affd. 693
F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1982); Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742,
756-757 (1970) (the Golsen rule requires the Court to follow a
Court of Appeals decision that is squarely on point if appeal
from its decision lies to that Court of Appeals), affd. 445 F.2d
985 (10th Cir. 1971).
Loss of Control
Petitioner makes a third argument for increasing his basis
by the amount of the $4 million loan. Petitioner argues that he
lost “control” of Level Propane and was therefore entitled to a
basis increase by the amount of the cost he associated with
losing control of the S corporation. Petitioner has not
substantiated, however, any alleged loss of control. Nor has
petitioner provided us with a means to value the loss of control.
Even had petitioner substantiated some transitory loss of
control, no basis-increasing event occurred. Petitioner remained
at all times the owner of his shares. We conclude that
petitioner has failed to show any economic outlay for his alleged
loss of control.
Form of the Transaction
Finally, we address petitioner’s argument that we
recharacterize the form of the loan transaction as a loan to
himself that he then advanced to Level Propane. Taxpayers are
ordinarily bound by the “form” of their transaction and may not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011