-28-
voice in petitioner’s activities generally, that he did not have
any formal control over any of petitioner’s activities, and that
he did not have any practical control over any of petitioner’s
activities.
We conclude, and we have found, that Vecchio was not an
insider with respect to petitioner during any of the years in
issue.
We hold in part for respondent and in part for petitioner on
this issue.
B. Did Any of Petitioner’s Net Earnings Inure to Zeve or Popovic?
We consider the categories of inurement items seriatim as
listed by respondent.
(1) Diverted Bingo Proceeds
Respondent contends that Zeve and Popovic profited from
petitioner’s breach of its fiduciary duty to the charitable trust
funds that consisted of the proceeds of the bingo games, and this
constitutes an inurement of petitioner’s net earnings to private
individuals. Petitioner contends that (1) the skimmed bingo
proceeds that Popovic used to pay for repairs, renovations, and
bingo workers’ compensation did not inure to insiders, and (2)
inurement involves an intentional conferring of benefits, while
the instant case involves theft.
We agree with petitioner’s conclusion.
Zeve and Popovic worked together to skim part of the
proceeds of the bingo games that Popovic operated for petitioner,
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011