Robert D. Grossman, Jr. - Page 44

                                       - 130 -                                        

               Petitioner proposed findings of fact that he “did not                  
          participate in setting the yearly salaries paid by the Sley                 
          Corporations”, that he “does not know who decided how to allocate           
          the salaries among the Sley Corporations”, and that he “believes            
          decisions regarding salaries paid by the Sley Corporations were             
          made by the corporations’ officers.”                                        
               Before the Sley Corporations were moved into Grossman &                
          Flask facilities, Betsy and Ben did not receive salaries from the           
          Sley Corporations.  Then Betsy and Ben received salaries, but               

               31(...continued)                                                       
          affects petitioner’s and Betsy’s income taxes, not just the                 
          income taxes of the payor corporations.  In particular, it                  
          affects the Schedule W deduction (sec. 221) and the I.R.A.                  
          contribution deduction (sec. 219), both of which are dealt with             
          supra note 3, and the excise tax (sec. 4973), which is dealt with           
          supra note 2.  It also has a consequence as to the proper                   
          treatment of the amounts withheld as F.I.C.A. taxes from the                
          amounts paid to Betsy.  See supra table 3; supra note 30.                   
          However, petitioner implicitly conceded the Schedule W and I.R.A.           
          contribution adjustments, respondent conceded the excise tax, and           
          neither side pursued the dispute about the credit for withheld              
          F.I.C.A. taxes.                                                             
               Respondent contends that the salary arrangement was part of            
          a “corporate tax evasion scheme” guided by petitioner, and so               
          shows petitioner willing to commit tax fraud.  At the same time,            
          (1) respondent understands that both the Schedule W and I.R.A.              
          deductions “turn on the question whether amounts paid to Betsy by           
          Markette Corporation during those years represent compensation              
          for services actually rendered”, but (2) respondent does not                
          contend that the underpayments resulting from the Schedule W and            
          I.R.A. deductions in the instant cases are due to fraud.                    
               In light of this apparent inconsistency in respondent’s                
          position, coupled with the above-described resolutions of the               
          adjustments that flow from the salary issue, we conclude that it            
          is not necessary for us to decide in the instant cases whether              
          the payments to Betsy constituted salary or additional dividends.           




Page:  Previous  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011