-310-
we have considered the business and tax purposes for the
Transactions and have analyzed the Tax Laws (as defined below) as
they relate to the facts and circumstances described in this
letter associated with the Transactions in the manner described
in, and required by, Treas. Reg. �� 1.6662-4(d)(3) and 1.6664-
4(c).” It defines the term “Tax Laws” as “existing provisions of
the Code, the Treasury Department regulations promulgated
thereunder (final, temporary, and proposed), published revenue
rulings and revenue procedures of the Internal Revenue Service *
* *, reports, and statements of congressional committees and
members, and judicial decisions”. Chamberlain Hrdlicka, however,
does not cite the particular items that it purportedly relied
upon. In fact the only citation in the opinion is to section
1.6662-4(d)(3) and 1.6664-4(c), Income Tax Regs., relating to
substantial authority and reasonable cause. Under these
circumstances, we cannot agree that the Chamberlain Hrdlicka
opinion provides any basis for reliance.
Chamberlain Hrdlicka’s opinion concludes by stating:
A number of issues raised by the matters addressed
in this letter, including matters upon which we have
stated our opinions, are complex and have not been
definitively resolved by the Tax Laws. The opinions
that we state in this letter are based upon our
interpretation of existing law and our belief regarding
what a court should conclude if presented with the
relevant issues properly framed. But we can give no
assurances that our interpretations will prevail if the
issues become the subject of judicial or administrative
proceedings. Realizing the tax consequences set forth
in this letter is subject to the risk that the IRS may
Page: Previous 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011