- 63 -
F.2d 494 (1st Cir. 1968); Rev. Rul. 58-90, 1958-1 C.B. 88.
Gleave was Kenmore’s sole shareholder, its president, and an
active worker. As we have pointed out (supra note 10), neither
side in the instant cases is clear as to its position regarding
which hat Gleave wore with regard to any of the Kenmore payments.
Neither side has given us the benefits of stating, much less
analyzing, its position as to whether section 106 properly leads
to Gleave’s excluding from his income Kenmore’s payment of the
Blue Cross premiums. Our analysis of the record in the instant
cases does not enable us to redetermine this point. Thus, we
conclude that the tax treatment of Kenmore’s payments of the Blue
Cross premiums is to be determined in accordance with the burden
of proof.
(e) Kenmore’s Income
Petitioners contend “that the income attributed to Mr.
Gleave was in fact income of 747 Kenmore.” All of Gleave’s
income that we deal with in the instant cases are payments by
Kenmore to or for the benefit of Gleave. There is not an
inconsistency between an item of income to Kenmore providing the
funds for a payment that results in income to Gleave.
(f) Eggertsville Inn
Petitioners contend on brief that the Eggertsville Inn was
“a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of 747 Kenmore.” They
state that “Ted Gleave and Shirley Bohn and Clifford Pixley all
testified without contradiction that both 1066 Sheridan and the
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011