Northwestern Indiana Telephone Company - Page 81

                                               - 81 -                                                  
            identification of the balance of the disputed 1988 payments.                               
            Similarly, of the remaining $3,263.51 of disputed 1989 payments,                           
            the parties agree that the entire $3,263.51 was paid by NITCO for                          
            utility bills with respect to the 301 North Washington Street                              
            property that NITCO was subleasing to NICATV.  All the 1989                                
            utility bill expenses covered the period from January 1 through                            
            June 30, 1989, when NICATV occupied the 301 North Washington                               
            Street building.                                                                           
                  We have previously determined that NITCO's activities with                           
            respect to NICATV were not undertaken by NITCO with a profit                               
            motive.  Petitioners, however, contend that NITCO's payments of                            
            the utility bills directly benefited NITCO, because NITCO also                             
            stored certain telephone equipment in the 301 North Washington                             
            Street building.                                                                           
                  Mr. Mussman testified that NITCO paid these utility bills                            
            because it had stored some of its telephone equipment in the 301                           
            North Washington Street building that it was subleasing to                                 
            NICATV.  The revenue agent, however, testified that, during his                            
            visit to the building during the fall of 1992, he found only a                             
            few pieces of office furniture stored there.  On brief,                                    
            petitioners have tried to explain this conflict by claiming the                            
            agent was only able to observe the space in the building to which                          
            he was given access.  More importantly, however, petitioners have                          
            failed to adequately explain why the utility bill payments were                            
            recorded as "open account loans" to Mr. Mussman if the payments                            
            were, in fact, business expenses of NITCO.                                                 



Page:  Previous  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011