The following excerpt is from Mosesian v. C.I.R., 967 F.2d 588 (9th Cir. 1992):
This test does not demand a rigid two-step analysis. Rather, "the consideration of business purpose and economic substance are simply more precise factors to consider in the application of this court's traditional sham analysis; that is, whether the transaction had any practical economic effects other than the creation of income tax losses. (Citations omitted.) Thus, the tax court's failure to specifically delineate a two-prong test and the factual findings that support each prong is not itself fatal." Sochin v. C.I.R., 843 F.2d 351, 354 (9th Cir.1988).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.