A. Lee Petersen and INI Builders, Inc. - Page 27

                                       - 27 -                                         

          to petitioner’s self-serving testimony, convinces us that the               
          payments INI made to Burke’s estate were in satisfaction of                 
          petitioner’s contractual obligation to purchase Burke’s shares in           
          INI from the estate.  The buy-sell agreement provides, in clear             
          and unambiguous language, that petitioner was obligated to                  
          purchase Burke's shares from his estate for $150,000.  Moreover,            
          petitioner and Thorpe agreed shortly after Burke's death that               
          petitioner was bound by the buy-sell agreement.  The payments are           
          therefore not deductible as a business expense to INI.  The                 
          payments conferred a benefit on petitioner to the extent that he            
          was relieved of the obligation to pay for Burke’s shares with his           
          personal funds.  Thus, the payments give rise to a constructive             
          dividend to petitioner.  INI’s earnings and profits are                     
          sufficient to render the payments fully taxable as a dividend.              
               Petitioner may well have had grounds for rescission or                 
          reformation of the buy-sell agreement by reason of Burke’s                  
          nondisclosure of his adverse medical history, which led to Mutual           
          Life’s refusal to honor the life insurance policy on Burke’s                
          life.  However, petitioner never sought relief from his                     
          obligation in any court, nor did he ever take the position that             
          he was not bound by the terms of the buy-sell agreement, as                 
          amended.  Burke’s estate may have had grounds for a quantum                 
          meruit claim for a portion of the $100,000 bonus that was                   







Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011