- 8 -
Only a minimal amount of business activity is required to
meet the second prong of the Moline Properties, Inc. test. See
Britt v. United States, 431 F.2d 227, 237 (5th Cir. 1970);
Tomlinson v. Miles, 316 F.2d 710, 714 (5th Cir. 1963). We
believe that the formation of petitioner was followed by business
activity in the ordinary meaning. See National Investors Corp.
v. Hoey, 144 F.2d 466, 468 (2d Cir. 1944). Petitioner's activity
began with the adoption of bylaws, the election of officers and
directors, and the issuance of stock. It included petitioner's
buying and selling the property in question, securing an employer
identification number, filing corporate Federal income tax
returns, taking depreciation deductions on the hunting lodge, and
reporting net income. Indeed, for most of the years in which
petitioner filed Federal income tax returns, it reported having
income.3 Under these circumstances, we find that petitioner was
active enough to justify holding that it did engage in business.
The absence of books and a bank account, and the failure to hold
corporate meetings are not decisive on that question. See Paymer
v. Commissioner, 150 F.2d 334, 336 (2d Cir. 1945), affg. in part
and revg. in part a Memorandum Opinion of this Court dated Jan.
2, 1943. The decision to recognize or not to recognize the tax
identity of a corporation depends upon what the corporation does,
3The record, however, contains no evidence as to the source
of that income.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011