26 February 1991 Income Tax Severed Letter

By services, 22 July, 2022
Language
English
Document number
Severed letter type
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
656682
Extra import data
{
"field_external_guid": [
"menu:://Federal Income Tax [CCH Tax ]/Tax Window Files/Tax Window Files/Tax Window Files/1990s/1991 [MR91_194.197 - FE91_224.226]/FE91_164 — Review of the General Anti-avoidance Rule Course Material - Case Study #7"
],
"field_proprietary_citation": [],
"field_release_date_new": "1991-02-26 07:00:00",
"field_tags": []
}
Main text

CASE STUDY #7

Recommended Solution:

     (1)  Review of the Act:
          There are no specific provisions within the Act which
          would disallow the interest expense or restrict the 
          capital cost allowance claimed by the partnership. 
          Interest on funds utilized to invest in a partnership
          would be deductible by the partner.
     (2)  Identification of a Tax Benefit:
          If the partnership were to borrow the funds directly to
          purchase the rental property then the amount of capital
          cost allowance that  could be claimed by the partnership
          would be restricted pursuant to subsection 1100(11) of
          the Regulations.  This ability to claim both interest and
          capital cost allowance on a rental property which would
          result in a loss in the hands of the partner would
          constitute a tax benefit for the purposes of subsection
          245(1).
     (3)  Identification of an Avoidance Transaction:
          In this particular case, it would appear that the
          partners would have an excellent argument that the
          primary purpose of borrowing the funds personally then
          investing the funds in the partnership would be to allow
          the partnership to buy the rental property.  It would be
          very difficult to prove that an avoidance transaction
          exists in this particular case.  Remember a taxpayer can
          arrange his affairs to attract the least amount of tax
          which is accomplished in this particular case.   Without
          an avoidance transaction, the provisions of subsection
          245(2) would not apply to the transactions.
          Other Comments:
          You may wish to review the 1989 Round Table question 42
          where the Department has expressed its position
          concerning this particular case.  The question also
          addresses other similar cases where GAAR would probably
          apply.

000164