- 15 -
Finally, petitioner disregarded the business form and entity
of the respective restaurants and, as relevant here, used the
assets and income of the restaurants as his own. Petitioner does
not deny that the skimmed proceeds were converted to his own use.
He had complete and unfettered use of the skimmed proceeds, and
therefore the receipt of the skimmed proceeds constituted income
within the meaning of section 61.3
Issue 2. Dividend Income
The next issue for our consideration is whether petitioner
failed to report dividend income from certain jointly held mutual
funds for 1988, 1989, and 1990. Petitioner held one of the
mutual fund accounts as custodian for his daughter, Jennifer
Beretta, and three accounts in joint tenancy with her.
Resolution of this issue turns on who is the true owner of the
income-producing property. The owner of property for Federal
income tax purposes is a question of fact to be determined from
an examination of all the facts and circumstances. Hang v.
Commissioner, 95 T.C. 74, 80 (1990). In determining the identity
of the owner of the property, we may look to beneficial ownership
instead of mere legal title. Serianni v. Commissioner, 80 T.C.
1090, 1104 (1983), affd. 765 F.2d 1051 (11th Cir. 1985). It is
3 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code for the years in issue, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011