- 273 -
(1) Whether the individual rather than the corporation or
entity that received the income, in fact, controlled the earning
of the income, see Vercio v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1246 (1980);
(2) whether the individual performed the services as an
agent or employee of the corporation, see Rubin v. Commissioner,
51 T.C. 251 (1968);
(3) whether the corporate form and the status of the
corporation as an actual operating enterprise have been
recognized by petitioners;
(4) whether the corporate form and the status of the
corporation as an actual operating enterprise have been
recognized by the other parties to the transactions giving rise
to the income;
(5) whether the form of the transaction served an economic
purpose, see Rubin v. Commissioner, supra; and
(6) whether the corporations were formed for the purpose of
taking advantage of losses incurred by a separate trade or
business.
The record shows that Kanter was in control of negotiations
concerning the amount of commissions and that he earned those
commissions by performing the work for them. He directed members
of the Five where to make payments. The various entities were
entirely subject to Kanter's control: he set up the entities, and
he managed the entities in that Meyers, Schott, Weisgal, and
Page: Previous 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011