In Consolidated Edison Company v. United States, the taxpayer's tax treatment of a LILO transaction was upheld by the court, and all tax benefits claimed by the taxpayer were sustained. Naturally, some muckraking columnists hurried to criticize the Con Edison decision, expressing disappointment that the court actually applied historic leasing case law to a well-developed factual record. Despite their whining, the case demonstrates that the IRS (and the muckrakers) was wrong to treat all LILO and SILO transactions as though they were some prepackaged tax-shelter commodity. Each case turns on its facts, and the taxpayer wins in a properly chosen and argued case.
- December 18, 2009Philip H. Spector
In-depth analysis of recent rulings.
December 18, 2009ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Analysis of recent key cases.
December 18, 2009ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |It has long been recognized that claims go up in an economic downturn just as the underwriters' ability to pay decreases. But is there more going on in this new era of strict scrutiny for title claims? Is the evidence merely anecdotal?
December 18, 2009Marvin BagwellEverything in this issue, listed in an easy-to-read format.
December 18, 2009ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Recent rulings from neighboring states.
December 18, 2009ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
December 18, 2009ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
December 18, 2009ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Who's doing what; who's going where.
December 18, 2009ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

