- 19 -
between related corporations can result in a constructive
dividend to a common shareholder if the transfer was made
primarily for the personal benefit of the common shareholder.
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 548, 565 (1986); Gilbert
v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 60 (1980); Schwartz v. Commissioner, 69
T.C. 877 (1978); Rapid Elec. Co. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 232,
239 (1973).
To determine whether an intercorporate transfer is a
constructive dividend to the common shareholder, we apply a two-
part test. Sammons v. Commissioner, 472 F.2d 449, 451 (5th Cir.
1972), affg. in part, revg. in part and remanding T.C. Memo.
1971-145; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1010, 1029-1030
(1987), affd. 914 F.2d 396 (3d Cir. 1990). The first part of the
test is objective: whether the transfer caused property to leave
the control of the transferor corporation and thereafter the
taxpayer/shareholder was able to exercise control over the
property, directly or indirectly, through some instrumentality
other than the transferor corporation. Individual petitioners
argue that petitioner husband was not a signatory on the accounts
as evidence of his lack of control. Petitioner husband also
denies that he was involved in any decisions regarding the
accounts, such as closing the Coast account, the amount of the
deposits or the prices charged by Shin, or ending the two-tier
payment system. However, we find such facts to be insignificant
in determining whether petitioner husband controlled the accounts
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011