- 16 -
that he is entitled to the deductions claimed. Rule 142(a);
INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992).
Petitioner's first argument is that the above listed amounts
are deductible as an ordinary and necessary business of
petitioner's separate business of developing computer software.
Although petitioner did spend time trying to develop a market for
the computer software, petitioner's activity with respect to the
computer software did not rise to the level of a separate trade
or business. With the exception of petitioner's involvement with
TIC/Multilogic, petitioner has never engaged in the trade or
business of investing in, organizing, or financing business
enterprises. A shareholder of a corporation is not engaged in
the trade or business in which the corporation is engaged unless
the shareholder engages in such trade or business apart from his
affiliation with the corporation as an investor. Smith v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-640; Jerich v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-136.
Furthermore, the computer leases were expenses of
TIC/Multilogic, not petitioner. Likewise, since the payment to
Mr. Miller was incurred investigating the business of the
corporation and not petitioner's legal business, that amount is
also a corporate expense. Schrott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1989-346. The rule is well established that a shareholder is not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011