- 20 -
as the controlling shareholder of Shin. Individual petitioners
allege that Edward Chiu, an 18-percent shareholder, made these
decisions and actually controlled Shin as its general manager.
The fact that petitioner husband permitted Edward to make day-to-
day decisions does not mitigate or change petitioner husband's
control of Shin. Indeed, petitioner husband had the ability to
fire and replace Edward. We hold that petitioner husband
exercised control over the bank accounts through his controlling
interest in Shin, as described above, satisfying the first part
of the Sammons test.
The second part of the test is subjective: whether the
transfer was prompted by a shareholder purpose of the common
owner rather than a business purpose of the transferor
corporation. Sammons v. Commissioner, supra. The second test is
to differentiate between normal business transactions and
transactions intended to benefit a common shareholder. Id. at
451-452. If the transfer between the commonly controlled
corporations related to the business operations of the transferor
corporation, no constructive dividend occurred.
Courts have interpreted this prong of the Sammons test to
require not only a subjective intent to primarily benefit the
common shareholder but also an actual primary economic benefit to
the shareholder. Stinnett's Pontiac Serv. Inc. v. Commissioner,
730 F.2d 634 (11th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C. Memo. 1982-314; Kuper
v. Commissioner, 533 F.2d 152, 160 (5th Cir. 1976), affg. in part
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011