- 76 - and 1989. It is well established that a payment made to a shareholder's family member can constitute a section 301 distribution by a corporation with respect to the stock of the shareholder. Green v. United States, 460 F.2d 412, 419 (5th Cir. 1972); Epstein v. Commissioner, 53 T.C. 459, 474-475 (1969). Under proper circumstances, it is appropriate to hold that a corporate payment made to or on behalf of a shareholder's family member represents a distribution by the corporation to the shareholder, because the shareholder enjoys the use of the property as much as if the corporation had distributed the property directly to the shareholder. Epstein v. Commissioner, supra. In determining whether an expenditure by a corporation represents income to the shareholder, it is necessary to decide whether the expenditure primarily benefited the shareholder personally rather than furthered the interest of the corporation. Hagaman v. Commissioner, 958 F.2d 684, 690-691 (6th Cir. 1992), affg. on this issue T.C. Memo. 1987-549; Ireland v. United States, 621 F.2d 731, 735 (5th Cir. 1980). Legal Expenses for which Respondent Disallowed Business Deductions to NITCO In the notice of deficiency issued to the Mussmans, respondent determined that the legal expenses for which respondent disallowed business deductions to NITCO for 1988 and 1989 represented constructive dividend income to Mr. Mussman. Respondent further determined that these legal expenses werePage: Previous 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011