- 17 -
Chisum did not schedule patients or decide how to treat them.
Petitioner and Chisum testified that Chisum changed the
philosophy of petitioner’s medical practice, but neither
identified any specific changes or decisions that Chisum made.
Petitioner and Chisum testified that Chisum met with Yuma Urgent
Care and Doctors on Call on behalf of Arivada. However,
petitioner offered into evidence no contracts that Arivada had
with Yuma Urgent Care or Doctors on Call, and no representative
of either entity testified at trial.
Petitioner contends that he used Arivada checks only to pay
Arivada's expenses, that he did not use the stamp on checks for
personal expenses, and that his use of Chisum’s stamp and
possession of Arivada's checkbook does not mean he controlled the
income. We disagree. Petitioner paid personal expenses such as
his mortgage, home repairs, homeowners security fees, auto
registration, auto insurance, auto service, tires, a magazine
subscription, and utility bills from the Arivada account.
Petitioner contends that Arivada had economic substance
because he purportedly gave legal title to the Scottsdale
residence and petitioner’s medical practice to Arivada and Chisum
as its trustee. We disagree. The fact that petitioner put the
title to the Scottsdale residence in Arivada’s name does not
imbue Arivada with economic substance, particularly when
petitioner treated the residence as his own. Also, we are not
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011