- 57 - In our findings, we have made certain adjustments to reflect what NITCO's net liquid assets would have been (i.e., its true dividend-paying capacity), during the years in issue, if NITCO had not made certain nonbusiness-related payments to benefit the individual Mussman family members.11 These expenditures did not further NITCO's business interests and were not of substantial and direct benefit to NITCO. Petitioners' arguments in this connection misapply and misinterpret the pertinent case law. NITCO's remaining net liquid assets do not reflect its true dividend-paying capacity because of substantial nonbusiness-related expenditures it made. Indeed, many of these expenditures may have been constructive dividends to Mr. Mussman. These expenditures do not represent translations of NITCO's accumulated earnings into assets related to the conduct of NITCO's business. Cf. Smoot Sand & Gravel 11Petitioners, on the other hand, contend that for 1987, 1988, and 1989, NITCO's net liquid assets were as follows: Year Net Liquid Assets 1987 $3,190,325 1988 4,251,470 1989 3,991,669 We note that even these respective amounts of net liquid assets well exceed the current earnings that NITCO accumulated during each of these years. We are further aware that to the extent we sustain respondent's determinations with respect to the Mussmans' having constructive dividend income for the years in issue, there will be a resulting decrease in NITCO's accumulated taxable income and current earnings. See secs. 535(a), (c)(1); 301(c)(1); 316(a).Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011