- 12 -
Busch v. Commissioner, 728 F.2d 945, 948 (7th Cir. 1984); Dolese
v. United States, 605 F.2d 1146 (10th Cir. 1979); Alterman Foods,
Inc. v. United States, 505 F.2d 873, 877 n.7 (5th Cir. 1974);
Nahikian v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-161. No single factor
is determinative. Alterman Foods, Inc. v. United States, 222 Ct.
Cl. 218, 223, 611 F.2d 866, 869 (1979); Boecking v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1993-497.
a. The taxpayer's degree of control over the corporation
Petitioner had exclusive, unfettered control over Goshorn.
Mr. Sweet testified that petitioner was involved in all phases of
the business, from participation in respondent's audit to
management decisions. Such unrestrained control weighs in favor
of constructive dividends. Epps v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-297.
b. The existence of restrictions on the amount of disbursements
Between November 1, 1987, and September 30, 1991, Goshorn's
books recorded that petitioner's "loan" account increased from
zero to $379,898.05. Petitioner never testified that a ceiling
existed on the amount that he could borrow from Goshorn. This
factor weighs in favor of constructive dividends. Crowley v.
Commissioner, supra at 1081.
c. The corporate earnings and dividends history
Generally, a distribution by a corporation to its share-
holders, to the extent of earnings and profits, is a dividend,
unless the distribution is within one of the exceptions of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011