- 79 - rather than helpful. In view of NICATV's and NITCO's refusal to comply with the FCC's orders in the divestiture action, the FCC referred the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate enforcement proceedings. Ultimately, in July 1989, Rhys sold NICATV. With respect to the legal expenses for which we sustained respondent's disallowance of business deductions by NITCO for 1988 and 1989, we sustain respondent's determination that NITCO's payment of those legal expenses represented constructive dividend income to Mr. Mussman for 1988 and 1989. Petitioners have failed to establish that NITCO's payment of the expenses did not primarily benefit the Mussman family, furthered NITCO's interest, and was of direct and substantial benefit to NITCO. Rule 142(a). Amount NITCO Paid to Rhys on December 20, 1988 In the notice of deficiency issued to the Mussmans, respondent determined that $22,646, which NITCO paid to Rhys on December 20, 1988, was constructive dividend income to Mr. Mussman. On brief, petitioners have advanced only a vague argument that Rhys served as a "consultant" to NITCO in 1985 and in 1989. Petitioners have failed to establish that the payment furthered NITCO's interest and was of direct and substantial benefit to NITCO. They have not offered any details or specific information concerning what, if any, actual "consulting work" Rhys performed for NITCO. Indeed, in NITCO and Rhys' March 24,Page: Previous 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011