Lynnda Speer, Donor, et al. - Page 22

                                       - 22 -                                         
          License Agreement.  Mr. Speer provided services to Pioneer during           
          the years in issue and was compensated for his services by                  
          Pioneer.  Based on the totality of the facts presented, we find             
          that Mr. Speer was acting on behalf of Pioneer when he signed the           
          License Agreement.                                                          
               The License Agreement served a valid business purpose and              
          was approved by independent, unrelated shareholders.  Despite               
          respondent’s assertion that Mr. Speer made the business decisions           
          and essentially controlled HSN, HSC, and Pioneer, respondent has            
          not argued that we should disregard the corporations as separate,           
          viable taxable entities, nor do we find any basis for doing so.             
          There is no evidence that Mr. Speer or his son, Richard,                    
          personally received the license fees paid by HSN to Pioneer.                
          Pioneer actually received the license payments and included them            
          in its income for Federal income tax purposes.9  Any benefit that           


          9Pioneer is now barred by the statute of limitations from                   
          claiming a refund for the taxable years 1985 through 1987.                  
          Petitioners have asserted the affirmative defense of equitable              
          recoupment in the event this Court upholds respondent’s                     
          determination that the license payments should be recharacterized           
          as constructive dividends from HSN to Mr. Speer followed by a               
          gift to his son, Richard M. Speer.  The doctrine of equitable               
          recoupment prevents unjust enrichment and may be invoked by a               
          taxpayer to recover taxes erroneously collected from the same               
          taxpayer or one with a sufficient identity of interest, where the           
          refund of such erroneously collected taxes is otherwise barred by           
          the statute of limitations.  Stone v. White, 301 U.S. 532 (1937);           
          Estate of Mueller v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 551 (1993).                     
          Petitioners contend that respondent is seeking to subject the               
          license payments to multiple taxes based on inconsistent legal              
          theories (i.e., gross income to Pioneer and a constructive                  
          dividend followed by a gift).  Moreover, respondent has asserted            
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011