- 10 -
evidence introduced by petitioners does not suggest that they
were engaged in a regular course of promoting their S
corporations for profit on their sale, so as to lend support to
an argument that they were engaged in a trade or business with
respect to their S corporations, other than as mere investors.
See Whipple v. United States, supra; Bell v. Commissioner, supra.
There is no evidence that petitioners were employees of the
partnerships or of Griffin California, such that their employment
therewith might constitute a business that might be jeopardized
by their failure to make the tax payments. See Bell v.
Commissioner, supra at 548; cf. Gould v. Commissioner, 64 T.C.
132 (1975).
Assuming, for sake of argument, that petitioners acquired
and continued to own properties in their individual capacities,
as suggested by the Schedules C attached to their 1995 and 1996
returns, there is no credible evidence that the tax payments were
made with respect to such activities. To the contrary,
petitioners’ accountant testified that the tax payments were
reported on Schedule E because they were attributable to
petitioners’ S corporations.
Further assuming, for sake of argument, that petitioners
were engaged in one or more trades or businesses in their
individual capacities, there is no credible evidence that the tax
payments represented ordinary and necessary expenses of any such
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011