United States' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs'

Treasury Decision 9207 ~ by which the IRS and Treasurypropounded Reg. § 1. 752 + 6, explains that the exceptions in§1.752-6 serve generally to "limit the application of theregulations to transactions that are abusive in nature andlack a business purpos$." 7 0 Fed. Reg. 30337 (emphasisadded). As described ábove (see p.20), one of theseexceptions shuts off for transactions the same as orsubstantially similar to Notice 2000-44 transactions. Theclear implication is tnat a transaction cannot be the sameas or substantially similar to a Notice 2000-44 transactionunless it is "abusive in nature and lack (s J a businesspurpose. "Had the IRS and Treasury made some isolated remarkindicating their view that the principal or sole purpose of allSon of BOSS transactions is tax avoidance, then perhaps onecould brush the remark aside. Or maybe this would be possibleif the remarks were casual statements made in unofficialdocuments. However, neither is the case.Instead the IRS andTreasury have repeatedly insisted that sole or principal purposeof Son of BOSS transactions is tax avoidance, and they have doneso in documents upon which they intend taxpayers to rely.In their depositions, Daniel A. Beal and Thomas Montgomerystate that they had legitimate non-tax purposes for (1) enteringinto the long and short currency swaps, (2) entering into those- 25 -