- 20 -
there after his family moved to a different home in 1989. No
evidence was offered from which we can properly infer any other
reason for this separation.6 That Maschmeyer served as
petitioner’s president is beside the point. His use of the
residence was necessary to petitioner’s business as described
above. We are satisfied that the residence was used in
petitioner’s business for purposes of section 167.
Respondent attaches great importance to the fact that the
improvements commenced immediately after Maschmeyer became sole
shareholder. From this respondent infers that the improvements
were made to benefit Maschmeyer as a shareholder rather than as
an employee. There is no support in the analogous cases,
J. Grant Farms v. Commissioner, supra, and Johnson v.
Commissioner, supra, for the proposition that because the farm
operators who lived on site were also sole owners of the
corporation, the accommodations were being furnished to them in
their capacity as shareholders. Inasmuch as Maschmeyer continued
throughout the taxable years at issue to perform the employment
duties for which the corporate residence was made available to
him, we find that any distinction between benefits he received as
an employee and benefits he received as a shareholder is not
6 We are not persuaded otherwise by the evidence that he is
currently in the process of obtaining a divorce. We find that he
was required to live on petitioner’s property in order to
discharge his responsibilities as manager of petitioner’s
business.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011