- 19 -
Instead, Dunkin, under Atkinson’s authority, established an
accounts receivable due from Atkinson for the $69,000 payment.
The evidence in the record shows that petitioner did not intend
for the construction expenses to be compensation for services
rendered; thus, we find that the construction expenses constitute
nondeductible constructive dividends and that petitioner
underpaid its taxes.
2. Fraudulent Intent
Along with proving an underpayment, the Commissioner must
show that the taxpayer intended to evade taxes known to be owing
by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the
collection of taxes. See Powell v. Granquist, 252 F.2d 56, 60-61
(9th Cir. 1958); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1123
(1983). A corporation has no intent separate from those who
control it. See King’s Ct. Mobile Home Park v. Commissioner,
supra at 516. The existence of fraudulent intent by a
corporation, therefore, is determined by the acts of its
officers. See id.
Fraud is not to be presumed. See Toussaint v. Commissioner,
743 F.2d 309, 312 (5th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-25;
Rowlee v. Commissioner, supra at 1123. The existence of fraud is
a factual question to be determined from all the facts and
circumstances contained in the record. See id. Since direct
proof of intent is rarely available, fraud may be proved by
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