Veterinary Surgical Consultants, P.C. - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         
          Cir. 1990), the corporations characterized payments to their                
          officer/shareholders as dividends rather than wages.  In those              
          cases, the courts found that the payments were in reality                   
          remuneration for employment and therefore subject to Federal                
          employment taxes.  Spicer Accounting, Inc. v. United States, supra          
          at 93;  Radtke v. United States, supra at 1197.  Petitioner                 
          attempts to distinguish its case from the Spicer and Radtke cases           
          because petitioner reported the payment to Dr. Sadanaga as a                
          distribution of its net income, which Dr. Sadanaga reported as              
          nonpassive income from an S corporation.  But as stated previously,         
          we find that the distributions were remuneration for services               
          provided by Dr. Sadanaga.  Thus, the “dividends” in the Spicer and          
          Radtke cases are indistinguishable from the distributions in this           
          case.                                                                       
               Petitioner also misstates the findings and conclusions of this         
          Court in Joly v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-361, affd. without           
          published opinion 211 F.3d 1269 (6th Cir. 2000).  Petitioner                
          asserts that the corporation in the Joly case was compelled to              
          treat income distributed to its shareholders as wages for the               
          reason that the corporation and shareholders could not prove that           
          any stock was issued to the shareholders.  To the contrary, the             
          Court found that part of the distributions to the two shareholders          
          was compensation for services and, thus, constituted wages subject          
          to Federal employment taxes.  The balance of the distribution was           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011