substance over form doctrine in Illinois

2020App. 3d at 900-02 , another case involving a like- kind exchange of an aircraft, in applying the substance-over-form doctrine “to determine how to treat differently situated third-party intermediaries in a Code section 1031 like-kind exchange.” JI Aviation, 335 Ill.

2020Id. at 920-23 . ¶ 54 Although Shakman acknowledges that the facts of JI Aviation bear little resemblance to the facts of his case, he posits that we should adopt the substance-over-form analysis from the case and use it to find that there was no taxable event from his change of ownership.

2025Under the related doctrine of substance over form, reviewing courts “ ‘look to the objective economic realities of a transaction rather than to a particular form the parties employed’ in deciding how to treat a particular transaction for tax purposes.” Shockley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 872 F.3d 1235, 1247 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561, 573 (1978)). ¶ 19 Here, the Tribunal determined that PepsiCo’s primary motive in creating PGM was to reduce PepsiCo’s overall tax liability and that PGM had no economic substance apart from the tax benefits i

2025Under the related doctrine of substance over form, reviewing courts “ ‘look to the objective economic realities of a transaction rather than to the particular form the parties employed’ in deciding how to treat a particular transaction for tax purposes.” Shockley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 872 F.3d 1235, 1247 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561, 573 (1978)). ¶ 18 Here, the Tribunal determined that PepsiCo’s primary motive in creating PGM was to reduce PepsiCo’s overall tax liability and that PGM had no economic substance apart from the tax benefits

2025Under the related doctrine of substance over form, reviewing courts “ ‘look to the objective economic realities of a transaction rather than to a particular form the parties employed’ in deciding how to treat a particular transaction for tax purposes.” Shockley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 872 F.3d 1235, 1247 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561, 573 (1978)). ¶ 19 Here, the Tribunal determined that PepsiCo’s primary motive in creating PGM was to reduce PepsiCo’s overall tax liability and that PGM had no economic substance apart from the tax benefits i

2025Under the related doctrine of substance over form, reviewing courts “ ‘look to the objective economic realities of a transaction rather than to the particular form the parties employed’ in deciding how to treat a particular transaction for tax purposes.” Shockley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 872 F.3d 1235, 1247 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561, 573 (1978)). ¶ 18 Here, the Tribunal determined that PepsiCo’s primary motive in creating PGM was to reduce PepsiCo’s overall tax liability and that PGM had no economic substance apart from the tax benefits

2026See Rogers, 281 F.3d at 1115 .

2026For example, in BB&T Corp. v. United States, 523 F.3d 461, 475 (4th Cir. 2008), the court held that, although a party structured a transaction as a lease and sublease, the substance of the transaction showed that it should instead be treated as a financing arrangement. ¶ 82 Both the substance-over-form doctrine and the economic substance doctrine can involve factual scenarios where a company serves as a mere “conduit” to facilitate a transaction between other parties.

2026See Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 115 F.3d at 514 (addressing whether a foreign subsidiary company possessed economic substance when its sole purpose was to allow an American taxpayer to borrow money in Europe without being subject to withholding - 25 - requirements). ¶ 81 The substance-over-form doctrine, by contrast, generally becomes relevant where the parties disagree about the nature of a transaction’s substance.

2023See Shakman v. Department of Revenue, 2019 IL App (1st) 182197, ¶¶ 54-55 . ¶ 25 Here, DHFS contracted with MCOs to provide Medicaid recipients with managed care plans.