- 111 -
Petitioner worked in a busy law office. (P.R.F. �
57(A)). He devoted 99.99 percent of his time to his law
firm. (P.R.F. � 57(A)). The trips to Mexico and Canada
preceding the end of his marriage were trips where Markette
Corp. business was discussed and the expenses paid are not
dividends to petitioner.
Obviously, Betsy and petitioner had substantial trouble
communicating at home. When Betsy and petitioner travelled
to Acapulco and Canada, Markette Corp. business was
discussed. (P.R.F. �� 512, 518).
We are satisfied that Betsy’s testimony captured the essence
of the situation. Respondent has shown by clear and convincing
evidence, and we have found, that petitioner’s, Betsy’s, and the
children’s Acapulco trip was for personal purposes and not for
Sley Corporations business. We conclude that Markette’s payment
of the costs of the trip constituted income to Betsy, reportable
on petitioner’s and Betsy’s 1985 joint tax return.
We hold for respondent on this issue.28
Stamford
Markette paid a $59.63 bill from Le Pavillon, dated June 8,
1985, that petitioner charged on his Markette American Express
credit card. This expenditure was associated with a trip to
Stamford, Connecticut, to attend a bar mitzvah. On the same day,
petitioner and Betsy charged two adult ($65 ea.) and four
28 On brief, respondent asserts that Betsy had $3,682.24
constructive dividend income on account of the Acapulco trip.
Our addition comes to $3,682.21, and we have so found. The
latter number appears to be consistent with respondent’s
determination in the notice of deficiency. Our holding is for
the latter number.
Page: Previous 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011