Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль


Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / TRANSCAPITAL LEASING ASSOCIATES 1990-II, LP; INTERNATIONAL BANCSHARES CORP., a Texas Corporation, and Its Subsidiaries; IBS SUBSIDIARY CORP., a Delaware Corporation; INTERNATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, a Texas Banking Corporation; IBC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a Texas Corporation, a Partner Other than the Tax Matters Partner Formerly Known as Bancor Development Company of Laredo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. ═, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, No. 06-50682 ═, Filed August 23, 2007

TRANSCAPITAL LEASING ASSOCIATES 1990-II, LP; INTERNATIONAL BANCSHARES CORP., a Texas Corporation, and Its Subsidiaries; IBS SUBSIDIARY CORP., a Delaware Corporation; INTERNATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, a Texas Banking Corporation; IBC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a Texas Corporation, a Partner Other than the Tax Matters Partner Formerly Known as Bancor Development Company of Laredo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. ═, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, No. 06-50682 ═, Filed August 23, 2007

24.06.2008  

TRANSCAPITAL LEASING ASSOCIATES 1990-II, LP; INTERNATIONAL BANCSHARES CORP., a Texas Corporation, and Its Subsidiaries; IBS SUBSIDIARY CORP., a Delaware Corporation; INTERNATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, a Texas Banking Corporation; IBC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a Texas Corporation, a Partner Other than the Tax Matters Partner Formerly Known as Bancor Development Company of Laredo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. ═

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 06-50682 ═

Filed August 23, 2007

Unpublished Decision

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 5:01-CV-881

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

**********

* ═ Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

**********

The court has considered appellants' position in light of the briefs, the oral argument, and pertinent portions of the record. We find no reversible error of fact or law and affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the district court. Because the transaction lacked a genuine business purpose and was economically insubstantial, it is unnecessary for us to adopt either variant of the sham-transaction doctrine currently used by the courts of appeals. See Compaq Computer Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Comm'r , 277 F.3d 778, 781-82 (5th Cir. 2001) (noting the competing variants outlined in Rice's Toyota World, Inc. v. Comm'r , 752 F.3d 89 (4th Cir. 1985), and ACM P'Ship v. Comm'r , 157 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1998)). We also express no opinion on the ancillary question whether the business-purpose analysis of an alleged sham transaction that is a ╖ 6221 partnership tax matter focuses on the subjective motivation of the taxpayer partner or the flow-through partnership entity. See 26 U.S.C. ╖ 6221. ═

AFFIRMED. ═

Разместить:

Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  

   

Легкая судьба электронных документов в суде

Бухгалтерские документы отражают важную информацию о хозяйственной деятельности организации.

Суфиянова Татьяна
Суфиянова Татьяна

Российский налоговый портал

Как открыть для себя «Личный кабинет налогоплательщика»?

Если у вас нет еще доступа в ваш «Личный кабинет», то советую сделать