- 26 -
concluded that there was unequivocal evidence that the
corporation was an agent of the partnerships without rigidly
applying the Natl. Carbide Corp. factors, explaining its holding
as follows:
It seems to us that the genuineness of the agency
relationship is adequately assured, and tax-avoiding
manipulation adequately avoided, when the fact that the
corporation is acting as agent for its shareholders
with respect to a particular asset is set forth in a
written agreement at the time the asset is acquired,
the corporation functions as agent and not principal
with respect to the asset for all purposes, and the
corporation is held out as the agent and not principal
in all dealings with third parties relating to the
asset. * * *
Id. at 349-350.
Petitioner argues that GXE was an agent of GITIC with
respect to the GXE loan under the standard articulated in Natl.
Carbide Corp. and clarified in Bollinger because a GITIC brochure
describes GXE as GITIC’s agent and states that GXE’s business
purpose is to “act as an agent for GITIC”. Petitioner, however,
offered no credible evidence to establish an agency relationship
between GITIC and GXE with respect to the GXE loan. For example,
petitioner provided no evidence that (1) GXE acted in the name of
or for GITIC in making the loan, (2) GXE could bind GITIC by
GXE’s actions, (3) the income received by GXE was transferred to
GITIC, or (4) GXE’s income was attributable to GITIC’s employees
and assets. Credible evidence in the record establishes GXE was,
among other things, in the business of investing in domestic and
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008