Norman E. Duquette, Inc. - Page 42




                                       - 42 -                                         
          VII.  Legal Fees                                                            
               On the 1994 tax return, under the heading other deductions,            
          petitioner deducted $57,862.03 for “Professional Fees”.                     
          Remaining in dispute is the amount of $33,842 paid by petitioner            
          to a law firm in Washington, D.C. (the legal fees), for                     
          representation of Norman in connection with the criminal                    
          investigation.  Petitioner argues that payment of the legal fees            
          is deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense of                       
          petitioner’s incurred in its business because an unfavorable                
          result to the criminal investigation “would have destroyed                  
          petitioner’s ability to remain in business by depriving the                 
          Petitioner of its key employee.”  Respondent argues that                    
          petitioner’s payment of Norman’s legal fees was a constructive              
          dividend to Norman.                                                         
               The issue presented herein is identical to that recently               
          considered by this Court in Hood v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 172              
          (2000).  Hood concerned the deductibility of legal fees paid by a           
          corporation on behalf of its sole shareholder and key,                      
          indispensable employee in connection with his indictment for                
          criminal tax evasion relating to his operation of the same                  
          business prior to incorporation.  In Hood, we held that the                 
          corporation’s payment of legal fees constituted a nondeductible             
          constructive dividend on the ground that the shareholder-                   
          employee, not the corporation, primarily benefited from such                






Page:  Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011