- 11 -
$180,748 constructive dividend derives from Mrs. Meyer's use of
AED's funds for personal purposes.
The elements of control over corporate funds and whether a
spouse has benefitted from the constructive dividend, rather than
actual stock ownership, comprise the sine qua nons of the
attribution of a constructive dividend to one or both spouses.
Compare Bokum v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126, 140 (1990) (omitted
income items pertain to sole shareholder husband, not relief-
seeking spouse, where the latter became an officer and director
of the corporation only after the transaction at issue, was
merely a figurehead and did not take part in any corporate
affairs), affd. 992 F.2d 1132 (11th Cir. 1993), Carter v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-322 (granting relief where
petitioner held basically symbolic position as officer of
corporation completely controlled by her husband, although she
owned a small percentage of stock, and she did not benefit from
the constructive dividend) and Hagaman v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1990-655 (nonshareholding spouse did not benefit from
constructive dividend, did not exercise control over her
husband's corporation, and unreported income was not made
available for her use) affd. in part and remanded in part 958
F.2d 684 (6th Cir. 1992), with Green v. United States, 460 F.2d
412, 420-421 (5th Cir. 1972) (taxpayer who owned merely 7.9
percent of corporation's stock exercised sufficient control for
constructive dividend to be attributed to her).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011