- 9 -
of December 31, 1992, $578,231 as of December 31, 1993, and
$768,223 as of December 31, 1994.
OPINION
The parties agree that, prior to his bringing suit against
the Lichtys, petitioner was a shill for others and that his
apparent ownership of the bingo operation was, most likely, a
sham. In addition, petitioner asserts that the existence of his
S corporation should be disregarded and that he should be
permitted to report the income or claim the losses directly,
instead of passing them through the entity. As an alternative,
petitioner argues that he “was not the beneficial owner of the
equity interest in November or the Bingo operations during the
years in issue, but was merely a ‘front man’, a ‘straw’, or
‘shill’”. Under the alternative argument, petitioner asks us to
hold that he was not entitled to any income from November.3
Finally, petitioner counters respondent’s position by contending
that the disputed adjustments to his S corporation were in error
and that he had basis to claim a passthrough loss.
Petitioner’s argument that we disregard his wholly owned
corporate entity (November) must fail. Petitioner first raised
this argument on brief, in a posttrial setting. Although
3 We summarily dispense with petitioner’s argument that no
income should be attributable to him because he received varying
amounts of money and/or benefits from and/or through his S
corporation’s bingo activities.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011