- 7 -
shows that petitioner administered the anesthesia and received
the compensation for his services. We find that the trust was
not a separate taxpaying entity for three primary reasons:
(1) Petitioner, not the trust, controlled the earning of the
compensation at issue, (2) petitioner controlled the CRNA Trust
bank account, and (3) petitioner treated 50 percent of the money
paid to NAA as his own.
First, we find that petitioner clearly controlled the
compensation in question. Dr. Voloshin and Oania testified that
petitioner and Oania performed anesthetic services for which they
were compensated. Oania and petitioner were the only people who
performed services for NAA.
In addition, petitioner clearly had control over the CRNA
Trust bank account and partial control over the NAA bank account.
A person may be treated as the owner of an account if he or she
can derive readily realizable economic value from the account,
and a person derives such value when "he or she has the freedom
to dispose of the account funds at will." Chu v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-549. Oania, petitioner's partner, testified that
he and petitioner split the profits of NAA equally, and that
petitioner sometimes deposited checks issued by NIS into the NAA
bank account. Canceled checks from the NAA bank account show
petitioner as the signatory. Petitioner was also authorized to
sign checks drawn on the CRNA Trust bank account.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011