Wilburn C. Hall, Jr. - Page 55

                                       - 55 -                                         
             We agree in part with respondent17 and in part with                      
        petitioner.                                                                   
             B. Corporate Expenses                                                    
             As a general rule, a corporation is to be treated as an                  
        entity separate from the individuals who own it, and this is true             
        in respect of tax problems. New Colonial Co. v. Helvering, 292                
        U.S. at 442. An individual who pays the expenses of the                       
        corporation generally is not entitled to deduct those payments,               
        unless those expenses are shown to be ordinary and necessary                  
        expenses of that individual. Deputy v. du Pont, 308 U.S. 488, 493-            
        495 (1940); Betson v. Commissioner, 802 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1986),             
        affg. on this issue and revg. on another issue T.C. Memo. 1984-               


               17   As we discussed in connection with A. Schedule C                  
          Income-1982, supra (also see supra table 4), the source and                 
          application of funds method, as applied for 1982 in the instant             
          case, involves. a conclusion that petitioner indeed spent in 1982           
          all the money for which he sought a deduction on his 1982                   
          Schedule C, except for his claimed $6,250 depreciation deduction            
          and his claimed $137,000 write-offs deduction. On the instant               
          issue, respondent contends that petitioner must substantiate his            
          claimed deductions, and contends, among other things, that the              
          substantiation requirement means that petitioner must show he               
          paid the amounts he seeks to deduct. We shall not allow                     
          respondent to succeed both (1) in the 1982 Schedule C income                
          issue on the assumption that petitioner spent the money in 1982             
          and (2) in the 1982 deductions issues on the assumption that                
          petitioner did not spend the money in 1982. Respondent cannot               
          have it both ways. See, e.g., Huddleston v. Commissioner, 100               
          T.C. 17 (1993).                                                             
               Accordingly, in light of our holding on the 1982 Schedule C            
          income issue, supra, we treat petitioner as having established              
          that he paid in 1982 the full amount of each of the 1982 items              
          for which he claimed a Schedule C deduction for 1982, except for            
          the claimed depreciation and write-off items.                               




Page:  Previous  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011