- 42 -
family dealerships.34 In fact, in related cases, respondent has
argued that Mr. Cordes was the beneficial owner, and we have so
held. Cordes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-377.
The evidence in this case resoundingly demonstrates that Mr.
Cordes’s control over the Cordes family dealerships remained
unimpaired and was so complete that he could do anything he
wanted with the Cordes family dealerships regardless of which
family member held legal title to the shares of stock. While the
record in this case contains several examples of Mr. Cordes’s
taking inconsistent positions with the Internal Revenue Service
and with others regarding the ownership of the Cordes family
dealerships, we simply cannot ignore the overwhelming weight of
the evidence establishing that no member of the Cordes family
other than Mr. Cordes held any beneficial ownership interest in
the Cordes family dealerships. The family members knew it,
corporate employees knew it, and, despite respondent’s position
in these consolidated cases, respondent knew it (having taken
such a position in related cases).
34In related cases, respondent has argued that Mr. Cordes
was the beneficial owner, and we have so held. Cordes v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-377 and T.C. Memo. 2002-125. This
may explain petitioners’ failure to argue directly that Mr.
Cordes beneficially owned all of the stock in the Cordes
corporations. We note, however, that it is difficult, if not
impossible, to reconcile respondent’s position in this case that
the transfers of stock were completed gifts with respondent’s
position in the related cases that Mr. Cordes was the beneficial
owner of the Cordes corporations.
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011