- 80 - 1988, complaint in the constitutional challenge action, they alleged that Rhys received no compensation from NITCO and had no formal responsibilities at NITCO. We hold that the $22,646 payment was constructive dividend income to Mr. Mussman in 1988. Rule 142(a). "Open Account Loans" NITCO on its books recorded certain payments that it had made as "open loan account payments" to Mr. Mussman. In the notice of deficiency issued to the Mussmans, respondent determined that $13,814 in "open account loans" that NITCO made for 1988 and $16,792 in "open account loans" that NITCO made for 1989, represented constructive dividend income to Mr. Mussman. Respondent has now conceded that certain of the 1988 and 1989 payments NITCO made were not constructive dividend income to Mr. Mussman. Petitioners, on the other hand, have conceded that certain other of the 1988 and 1989 payments NITCO made were constructive dividend income to Mr. Mussman. Still at issue between the parties is whether the remaining $7,058.11 of 1988 "open account loans" and the remaining $3,263.51 of 1989 "open account loans" were constructive dividend income to Mr. Mussman. Of the remaining $7,058.11 in disputed 1988 payments, the parties agree that at least $6,119.95 of the payments was for utility bills with respect to the 301 North Washington Street property that NITCO was subleasing to NICATV, Rhys's cable television company. The parties cannot agree on thePage: Previous 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011