Carl E. Jones and Elaine Y. Jones - Page 39

                                                -39-                                                  
                  Respondent introduced the copy of the check issued by                               
            Spalding Partners, dated March 1, 1989, and made payable to Carl                          
            E. Jones for $80,051.  Respondent concedes that this same                                 
            evidence was before the Court in INI, Inc. v. Commissioner,                               
            supra.  We found in INI, Inc. that petitioner was president of                            
            INI, and as of September 29, 1988, its sole director, and that                            
            Spalding issued the $80,051 check to INI pursuant to the March 1,                         
            1989, amendment to the agreement to splitup the corporations.                             
            There is no evidence that petitioner deposited the check in his                           
            personal account or any evidence that petitioner expended the                             
            money for his personal benefit.  Therefore, although the check is                         
            evidence that petitioner actually received the amount at issue,                           
            it is not persuasive evidence that petitioner received the check                          
            as a shareholder of INI.                                                                  
                  Therefore, in conformity with our holding in INI, Inc., we                          
            find that although the check was made payable to petitioner, it                           
            was payable to him in his capacity as president and director of                           
            INI pursuant to the March 1, 1989, amendment to the agreement to                          
            splitup the corporations, and that he received it on behalf of                            
            the corporation.  Accordingly, it is not dividend income to                               
            petitioner.                                                                               
            Issue 4.  Whether Petitioners Received Constructive Dividends                             
            From INI in 1989, 1990, and 1991                                                          
                  As part of the corporate reorganization and separation of                           
            Spalding and INI pursuant to section 355, Spalding transferred to                         
            INI the account Spalding maintained for the loans it had made to                          



Page:  Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011