- 22 -
evidence more weight than Markovski’s testimony that those
deposits were from his ruble hoard, and so find. We do not find
sufficient similarities between the March 5, 1992, Markovski
deposit of $1,600,000 and any American Valmar transactions to
rebut Markovski’s testimony that that deposit was from his ruble
hoard, and we so find.
We find that the April 22, May 23, May 24, and May 31
Markovski deposits were constructively received by American
Valmar and constitute items of gross income to American Valmar
for 1991. See, e.g., Truesdell v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1280,
1300 (1987) ("diverted amounts taxed to a shareholder as
constructive dividends also remain fully taxable to the
corporation to which attributable"). We see little difference
between those deposits and the ones made on July 1 and 12, 1991.
Nevertheless, since respondent has not determined any deficiency
in American Valmar’s 1992 tax on account of those deposits,4 we
shall ignore them with respect to American Valmar. We find that
all of the April 22, May 23, May 24, May 31, July 1, and July 12,
1991, Markovski deposits were distributed to Markovski with
respect to his stock. Since petitioners have failed to prove an
insufficiency in American Valmar’s earnings and profits, the
distributions are dividends includable in Markovski’s 1991 gross
income. See secs. 301, 316.
4 See supra note 2.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011