Anand K. Verma - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
          that Export was a strong, sturdy business.  Further, according to           
          the articles of incorporation, Export was formed to sell American           
          manufactured products abroad and to enter into agreements with              
          manufacturers and distributors.                                             
               We are further satisfied that Export engaged in a sufficient           
          level of business activity.  Petitioner held himself out to the             
          public as the president of Export, and petitioner attempted to              
          secure sales and purchases under the corporate name.  Petitioner            
          sent several letters to various distributors and purchasers on              
          the Export letterhead in an effort to create business.  In fact,            
          Export had one sale, although the sale was subsequently                     
          cancelled.  Export’s level of business activity for 1996 and 1997           
          was such that we will not disregard the corporate form.                     
               Petitioner contends that the corporate form should be                  
          disregarded because he spent only 3 to 4 hours per week on the              
          business.  Petitioner, now recognizing it is advantageous to                
          disregard the corporate entity, testified that he engaged in                
          little or no sales activity, which is inconsistent with the                 
          position in his Federal tax returns.  For example, petitioner               
          claimed on those returns that he drove a total of almost 29,000             
          miles in 1996 and 1997 for business purposes.  We are not                   
          required to rely upon petitioner’s self-serving testimony.  See             
          Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 219-220 (1992);                  








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011