- 115 -
Canada
Markette paid $3,610.37 for expenses of petitioner, Betsy,
and the children on a trip to Canada. See Findings Check Nos.
2098 and 2108--Canada, supra. When asked what the purpose was of
this 10-day August 1985 trip, Betsy testified that “Basically it
was a family trip.” On answering brief, petitioner states that
“While in Canada, Betsy Grossman and petitioner continually
discussed Markette Corp. business.” We do not believe
petitioner’s protestations about “continually” discussing Sley
Corporations business in Buffalo, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, and
places in between.
At trial, petitioner appeared to have acknowledged that the
expenses of the Canada trip should have been subject to an
“allocation * * * to do the right thing”. However, taking into
account factors described in George R. Holswade, M.D., P.C. v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. at 701-702, and the allocations we made in
that opinion, the record herein leads us to the conclusion that
no allocation should be made in the instant cases; all the Canada
trip expenses here in dispute are personal.
Respondent has shown by clear and convincing evidence, and
we have found, that petitioner’s, Betsy’s, and the children’s
Canada trip was for personal purposes and not for Sley
Corporations business. We conclude that Markette’s payment of
the costs of the trip constituted constructive dividend income to
Page: Previous 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011