- 15 - said: “In such circumstances, the proof should be very clear and very certain that the expenses charged to the corporation were legitimate business expenses of the corporation. Otherwise, the opportunity for abuse would be great.” Id. at 151. In Place v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 199 (1951), affd. per curiam 199 F.2d 373 (6th Cir. 1952), we dealt with a taxpayer claiming a deduction for rentals paid his wife for the use of her property in a manufacturing concern owned and operated by him. The Commissioner argued that the rentals were excessive. We stated: The basic question is not whether these sums claimed as a rental deduction were reasonable in amount but rather whether they were in fact rent instead of something else paid under the guise of rent. The inquiry is whether the petitioner was in fact and at law “required” to pay these sums as rent. See * * * [predecessor of sec. 162(a)(3)]. When there is a close relationship between lessor and lessee and in addition there is no arm’s length dealing between them, an inquiry into what constitutes reasonable rental is necessary to determine whether the sum paid is in excess of what the lessee would have been required to pay had he dealt at arm’s length with a stranger. * * * Id. at 203. In 1994, there was a close relationship between the Duquettes and petitioner. The Duquettes were the sole owners of petitioner, which was, in effect, Norman’s one-man corporation. That close relationship gives us reason to question whether their dealings were at arm’s length, and petitioner has failed to showPage: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011