- 11 - payments as both corporate expense deductions and repayments of loans, petitioners have tried to avoid tax at both the corporate and individual levels.7 Of course, to the extent the corporate payments were for ordinary and necessary business expenses of the corporate payor, they would reduce income tax at the corporate level, while if they were truly repayments of bona fide loans, they would not be includable in petitioners' income. However, petitioner has tried to have it both ways, treating the same payments as both corporate expense deductions at the corporate level and repayment of loans at the individual level. We realize that shareholders of closely held C corporations often withdraw substantial amounts of corporate earnings as salaries, which the corporations deduct, thereby reducing income tax at the corporate level, and sometimes raising the question whether the salaries are reasonable. By contrast, petitioner has reported relatively small amounts of compensation from JJM and GAPS, while those corporations have claimed their payments of his personal living expenses as business deductions. If allowed to 7Respondent determined in her statutory notice that GAPS and JJM paid a total of $212,380 in 1989 to petitioner or on his or his family's behalf. Respondent also disallowed, in the corporations' statutory notices, $144,411 of corporate expense deductions claimed on the corporations' 1989 pro forma U.S. corporation income tax returns. Therefore, $144,411 of the $212,380 paid to petitioner by GAPS and JJM were also deducted by the corporations at the corporate level. In addition, the Mancusos reported only $10,259 as compensation to petitioner from the corporations ($4,000 wages from JJM and $6,259 non-employee compensation from GAPS) on their 1989 Form 1040.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011