- 181 -
however, we can see no rationale under which they constitute
income, and we therefore hold for petitioner.
E. Ingersoll-Rand
Petitioner argues that he is not liable for any unreported
commission income from Ingersoll-Rand. At trial he and his
witnesses testified that neither he nor CTC sold any Ingersoll
Rand products during the period at issue, that Diesel Power was
the representative for Ingersoll Rand, and therefore, that none
of the commissions from that company was earned by him. Although
respondent originally took the position that commissions from
Ingersoll-Rand should have been included in petitioner's gross
income, respondent on brief has partially conceded this issue,
concluding that there was an agreement between Ingersoll-Rand and
Diesel Power whereby Diesel Power was Ingersoll-Rand's
representative in Iran. The record supports this position.
Respondent contends now that petitioner is required to include in
income all Ingersoll-Rand commissions that "he diverted from
Diesel Power to his dominion and control."
With regard to 1973 and 1974, respondent concedes the
amounts of $48,222.04 and $197,259.65, respectively. However, in
the ultimate proposed findings respondent asserts in a type of
"dominion and control" argument that petitioner has income for
these years to the extent of petitioner's withdrawals from the
Diesel Power Bank of America account. Respondent claims that the
Page: Previous 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011