- 56 - Cir. 1968) (taxpayer’s uncontradicted testimony need not be accepted), affg. T.C. Memo. 1967-119. The objective evidence in the record contradicts petitioner’s contention that he was acting as an agent in furtherance of a corporate purpose. Petitioner points first to the fact that between January and February 1988, he returned significant sums to IL NA Tours; that is, of the $1,294,058 that he initially transferred from an IL NA Tours’ corporate account to his personal FCIS account, $752,702 was returned to IL NA Tours before the end of February.33 It is true that this return of funds to the corporation (which occurred almost exclusively in February 1988) might support an inference that petitioner was holding them as the corporation’s agent. If these were the only relevant facts, we might be persuaded. However, petitioner’s other actions during 1988, discussed below, belie the claim of agency. 33 Petitioner contends that the $752,702 returned to IL NA Tours was used to meet IL NA Tours’ obligation under the January agreement to make payments of $62,155 per week to Northwest. The evidence in the record does not support this contention. In any event, for purposes of petitioner’s argument that the return of funds to IL NA Tours indicates agency, it is sufficient that the funds were in fact returned to the corporation, which is undisputed.Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011