- 43 -
In the absence of fraud, the period for assessing a
deficiency in tax had expired prior to the issuance of the
notices of deficiencies to Beck's Liquors for all years at issue
and to Mr. Beck for 1991. Sec. 6501(c)(2).
Issue 4. Whether Petitioner Mr. Beck Received Constructive
Dividends From Beck's Liquors in 1992 and 1993 in the Respective
Amounts of $151,448 and $117,641
Because Mr. Beck did not file returns for 1992 and 1993, the
period for assessing a deficiency did not expire prior to the
issuance of the notice of deficiency. Sec. 6501(c)(3).
Respondent asserts that Mr. Beck is the true owner of the stock
of Beck's Liquors and that he received constructive dividends
from the corporation in 1992 and 1993.
I. Ownership of Stock of Beck's Liquors
Beneficial ownership rather than bare legal title is
critical in determining who is a shareholder. Hook v.
Commissioner, 58 T.C. 267, 273 (1972); Hoffman v. Commissioner,
47 T.C. 218, 233 (1966), affd. per curiam 391 F.2d 930 (5th Cir.
1968).
A nominee theory involves the determination of the true
beneficial ownership of property. See, e.g., Oxford Capital
Corp. v. United States, 211 F.3d 280, 284 (5th Cir. 2000).
Nominees, guardians, agents, and custodians are not recognized as
taxable entities. W & W Fertilizer Corp. v. United States, 208
Ct. Cl. 443, 527 F.2d 621, 627 (1975).
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011