- 25 -
cannot be avoided simply by delegating responsibility to an
agent. Pritchett v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 149, 174 (1974).
Henry argues that he was not part of the core group that
controlled IMED and that he would not be privy to the "ongoing"
discussions with Cramer, Monaghan, and Boynton regarding the
stock options. Respondent, however, points to the fact that
Hendrickson was responsible to Henry in the organizational scheme
within IMED. In other words, Hendrickson's responsibility as the
head of IMED's accounting department included conveying his
interpretations of the Internal Revenue Code to Henry.
Hendrickson's responsibilities in the corporation included
informally advising Henry with respect to his own taxes. Henry
and Hendrickson socialized once every couple of months, as well
as having lunch with each other on a regular basis. In
connection with the sale negotiations with Warner-Lambert, Henry
was required to supply financial analyses, as well as discuss the
projected market and product forecasts. Although Henry's
responsibilities did not specifically encompass taxation issues,
the tax treatment of the stock options was a critical
consideration. In particular, we note that a major item that was
negotiated involved Warner-Lambert’s forgoing a deduction on its
1982 Federal income tax return for the payment of the option
purchase proceeds. That issue was important enough for Cramer to
meet with the head of Warner-Lambert. Also, Henry admitted,
during the sale negotiations, he expressed his belief to Cramer
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011