- 13 -
Respondent asserted protective deficiencies against both
William Becker and BHC, alternatively disagreeing with each
party’s characterization of the transaction, in order to avoid
being “whipsawed” by alternative versions of the same
transaction. After consolidation of the cases for a
determination of the issue, respondent has agreed with the
characterization of the transaction proposed by William Becker,
reserving the right to reverse his position should the Court hold
for BHC.
I. Relevant Caselaw
Courts have used a variety of rules to analyze transactions
of the type at issue in this case, including the strong proof
rule, the mutual intent test, and the Danielson rule. See, e.g.,
Better Beverages, Inc. v. United States, 619 F.2d 424, 430 (5th
Cir. 1980); Commissioner v. Danielson, 378 F.2d 771, 773 (3d Cir.
1967); Ullman v. Commissioner, 264 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1959), affg.
29 T.C. 129 (1957). The instant case would be appealable to the
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, barring a stipulation
otherwise. The Tax Court will generally defer to the rule
adopted by the Court of Appeals for the circuit to which appeal
would normally lie, if that Court of Appeals has ruled with
respect to the identical issue. See Golsen v. Commissioner, 54
T.C. 742, 756-757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that any
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011