- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011