- 45 -
it is unlikely that petitioners saw themselves as discharging
corporate duties when counseling the Israeli enterprise.
Furthermore, we reject respondent’s argument that B. Mayer
Zeiler’s presence and activities in Israel show DPC continued to
render the services enumerated in the 1980 agreement. B. Mayer
Zeiler’s job description indicates that his role as a DPC
employee with respect to FIL consists of responsibility for
managing and running all aspects of the FIL business on a day-to-
day basis. The description contemplates active involvement in
selling, purchasing, negotiating, and procuring, and testimony
reflected the B. Mayer Zeiler does in fact run FIL’s daily
operations. In contrast, the 1980 agreement calls for services
which are advisory or supportive in nature and distinct from
active management. Thus, if B. Mayer Zeiler performed any such
consulting services for FIL, our grounds for concluding that he
did so in his official capacity as a DPC employee are not
significantly greater than with respect to the other petitioners.
We therefore hold that the individual petitioners are to be
treated as the earners of the consulting income remitted to DPP
by FIL, and that they are entitled to claim an appropriate
deduction for their pro rata share of DPP’s reported expenses.
The record fails to support respondent’s assertions that such
amounts are to be allocated first as income to DPC, then
classified as constructive dividends to the individuals. Since
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011