Venture Funding, Ltd. - Page 30

                                       - 30 -                                         
               2.  Why didn’t respondent summarily assess employment taxes            
          that petitioner should have withheld and paid over in respect of            
          the Endotronics shares petitioner caused to be paid to its                  
          employees as compensation?2                                                 
               3.  Why didn’t respondent’s statutory notice, rather than              
          asserting, as an alternative to disallowing the compensation                
          deduction claimed by petitioner, that petitioner had “taxable               

               1(...continued)                                                        
          v. United States, 15 Cl. Ct. 38 (1988)); (2) Petitioner’s chief             
          executive officer, owning 49.95 percent of its stock (the parties           
          have stipulated that he directed and controlled all aspects of              
          petitioner’s activities), signed petitioner’s return, which                 
          claimed the corporate deduction as a miscellaneous deduction for            
          “consulting” and did not report on the officers’ salary schedule            
          on p. 2 of the return the compensatory shares received by him and           
          petitioner’s other officers, even as petitioner was not reporting           
          on the same return its compensation income on receipt of a much             
          larger number of Endotronics shares and he was not reporting on             
          his own return his personal income on the shares received by him            
          as compensation.                                                            
               2 The parties have stipulated that petitioner did not issue            
          W-2 Forms or Forms 1099 disclosing the payments of the                      
          compensatory shares to its employees.  It seems likely that                 
          petitioner omitted the value of the Endotronics shares from the             
          amounts of compensation paid to its employees from the Forms 941            
          that it was required to file with respect to employment taxes               
          under subtitle C, chapter 24 of the Code.                                   
               In addition, petitioner may well have caused Endotronics,              
          which became controlled by petitioner under the terms of the plan           
          of reorganization approved by the bankruptcy court, not to file a           
          Form 1099 for the 7,650,000 shares that Endotronics issued to               
          petitioner, including the portion of those shares issued, at                
          petitioner’s direction, to petitioner’s employees, as                       
          compensation to petitioner for its commitments to provide                   
          management services and necessary financing.  The plan of                   
          reorganization discloses that more than 3 months before issuance            
          of the shares petitioner’s treasurer had been named chief                   
          financial officer of Endotronics.                                           





Page:  Previous  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011