- 28 -
respondent’s proposed deduction disallowance, for both 1994 and
1995, is limited to collections attributable to the
nonshareholder surgeons less applicable direct costs and
allocable overhead. On both occasions, the Court suggested that
it would be helpful if the parties were able to stipulate as to
the proper allocation of overhead attributable to collections
generated by Drs. Snyder and Vaughan. To that end the Court
agreed to leave the record open for 30 days for such stipulations
by the parties. The parties failed to stipulate agreed
allocations of overhead. It is therefore left to the Court to
make the required overhead allocations, on the basis of the
evidence in the record.
In his proposed findings of fact, respondent attempts to
compute the portion of petitioner’s total expenses attributable
to Dr. Snyder for 1994 and to Dr. Vaughan for 1995. Respondent
subtracts those allocated expenses, for 1994, from Dr. Snyder’s
deemed collections (considered by respondent to equal his net
billings for that year) and, for 1995, from actual collections
attributed to both Dr. Snyder and Dr. Vaughan, in order to derive
the deemed dividend for each year. Petitioner objects to
respondent’s computation of Dr. Snyder’s collections for 1994 and
to respondent’s allocations of expenses for both years. The
expenses subject to allocation are those deducted on petitioner’s
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011