- 20 -                                         
          reallocated income from the Earl Kiem escrow account to                     
          petitioners under section 482.  However, respondent did not                 
          reallocate income to petitioners from Americana or the Earl Kiem            
          escrow account under section 482.                                           
               Respondent argues that petitioners are taxable on                      
          Americana's income because petitioner husband improperly                    
          converted Americana's assets to his control and intermingled his            
          financial affairs with those of Americana such that Americana               
          became his alter ego.  We disagree.  Respondent cited no                    
          authority for us to apply the alter ego theory in these                     
          circumstances.  We do not apply an alter ego theory to reallocate           
          income from Americana to petitioners because Americana engaged in           
          bona fide business activities and was a separate taxable entity.            
          Jackson v. Commissioner, 233 F.2d 289, 291 (2d Cir. 1956), affg.            
          24 T.C. 1 (1955); Paymer v. Commissioner, 150 F.2d 334, 336-337             
          (2d Cir. 1945) (income from property taxed to stockholders,                 
          rather than the corporation, only if the corporation is a dummy             
          or sham or is used for tax avoidance purposes).  As discussed               
          below infra par. 9, petitioner husband did not fraudulently                 
          divert corporate funds from Americana.  Cf. Ruidoso Racing                  
          Association, Inc. v. Commissioner, 476 F.2d 502, 506 (10th Cir.             
          1973), affg. in part and revg. and remanding in part T.C. Memo.             
          1971-194; Moore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-275, affd. 619             
          F.2d 619 (6th Cir. 1980) (corporation's dominant shareholder                
          fraudulently diverted corporate funds for personal use and so               
Page:  Previous   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011