Grp., Inc. v. United States, 658 F.3d 276 (2d Cir.2011) (affirming jury finding that a series of LILO and other transactions did not withstand the substance-over-form inquiry); Wells Fargo, 641 F.3d 1319 (Fed.Cir.2011) (same as to SILO transaction involving public transit vehicles); BB & T Corp. v. United States, 523 F.3d 461, 464 (4th Cir.2008) (affirming district court’s conclusion that “although the form involved a lease financed by a loan, BB & T did not actually acquire a genuine leasehold interest”); AWG Leasing Trust v. United States, 592 F.Supp.2d 953, 981-82 (N.D.Ohio 2008) (finding that in SILO transaction, taxpayer never obtained ownership interest in German waste-to-energy disposal treatment plant to support deductions); John Hancock Life Ins., 141 T.C. at 54-55 (2013) (<HOLDING>). In each of these cases, the court found that
holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance holding that the substance of lilo transactions were not consistent with their legal form precluding various deductions holding that identity of parties for res judicata purposes is a determination of substance not mere form holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance