- 14 -
As for the second prong of the test, namely, that there must
exist between the corporation and the person using the services a
contract or similar indicium recognizing the corporation's
controlling position, we believe the substantial weight of the
evidence indicates that the service recipients, Bennett Logging
and Happy Trucking, did not recognize Ruckman, Inc., as having a
controlling position with respect to the dispatch services.
Again, there was no written contract for dispatch services
between Ruckman, Inc., and either Bennett Logging or Happy
Trucking. Bennett Logging's checks for dispatch services were
made out to Mrs. Ruckman personally. For the 3 years at issue,
Bennett Logging issued Forms 1099 to Mrs. Ruckman personally with
respect to the payments for dispatch services, while in the same
years it issued Forms 1099 to Ruckman, Inc., with respect to
payments for hauling services. Cf. Zadan v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1993-85 (Forms 1099 issued to taxpayer personally support
conclusion that taxpayer rather than his corporation was true
earner). At trial, the parties jointly stipulated a written
statement of Gordon Bennett, as president of Bennett Logging, in
which he asserts that the "administration" of the trucking branch
of Bennett Logging, and subsequently of Happy Trucking, which he
further describes as consisting of the services that have been
characterized herein as dispatch services, "was the
responsibility of Robert Ruckman, Inc." and that "Due to an
error, 1099's were issued to Julie Ruckman." The statement is
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011