- 85 -
essentially have attributed the $88,484 only to those specific
matters the parties agree upon.
With respect to the $1,166.59 NITCO expended to Andrew &
Kurth for Dial One Mobile, petitioners have conceded that the
payment was constructive dividend income to Mr. Mussman in 1989,
and we so hold. NITCO also expended $32,363.64 to B&H for Dial
One Mobile work. Dial One Mobile was a company Rhys owned, which
was conducting activities with respect to cellular telephone
systems in Asheville, North Carolina, and Enid, Oklahoma. NITCO
had no interest in Dial One Mobile. Petitioners have failed to
show that the payment was of direct and substantial benefit to
NITCO. We hold that the $32,363.64 in payments made to B&H was
constructive dividend income to Mr. Mussman for 1989.
With respect to the $3,327.50 NITCO expended to EMCI for
cellular telephone publications, it is not clear whether the
cellular telephone publications were purchased and used to
benefit NITCO, as opposed to individual members of the Mussman
family. Petitioners have failed to establish that the
expenditure furthered NITCO's interest and was of direct and
substantial benefit to NITCO. We hold that the $3,327.50 payment
was constructive dividend income to Mr. Mussman in 1989. Rule
142(a).
With respect to the expenditures NITCO made to Handlon &
Handlon for various matters, petitioners concede that a $264
payment was for work performed for Kyle's corporation, FiberComm,
and that such payment was constructive dividend income to Mr.
Page: Previous 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011