- 43 -
making payments to Howard Berger. Gregg Kunkowski appeared to
believe that Alice Berger had the authority to do so because he
stopped making the payments, see Tucker v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1983-456 (comparing owners' participation in, and control
of, the business), until the Chancery Court ordered him to resume
them.
Throughout the divorce proceedings, Alice Berger represented
to the Chancery Court that she and Howard Berger jointly owned
Woodbine, and that the weekly payments from the Woodbine business
account were in addition to alimony pendente lite.
During 1988, Alice Berger withdrew $45,578 from the Woodbine
business account, and from January 1 until March 14, 1989, she
withdrew $7,560. During 1988, Howard Berger withdrew $42,676
from the Woodbine business account, and from January 1 until
March 14, 1989, he withdrew $7,795.
During 1988 and until March 14, 1989, Howard and Alice
Berger shared the benefits of the Woodbine business, and
Alice owned the Woodbine business jointly with Howard.
Although full legal title to the Woodbine real property was
not transferred to Alice Berger until June 23, 1989, the
settlement agreement of March 14, 1989, transferred all the
benefits and burdens of the Woodbine property and business to
Alice Berger. See Deyoe v. Commissioner, supra. Thereafter,
Howard Berger no longer received weekly payments or had his
expenses paid by Woodbine, except those expenses that had already
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011