- 9 -
[The corporation] appears to have existed * * * as a mere
set of bookkeeping entries and bank accounts. It did not
enter into any arrangements to provide the service of its
“employees” to any of the institutions, doctors, etc., for
whom * * * [the shareholder/doctors] provided services. It
did not own any equipment, incur any debts for rent, office
or medical supplies or services, or for salaries, except for
the salaries of the * * * [shareholder/doctors]. The only
“shared” expense, i.e., the only expense which was incurred
jointly by the * * * [shareholder/doctors] was $45 a month
for the time * * * [the] office secretary devoted to
maintaining records of income and expenses received and paid
by * * * [the corporation]. The maintenance of these
records for tax purposes appears to be the only real
business activity engaged in by the corporation. * * *
[Roubik v. Commissioner, supra at 379.]
If anything, this case is the antithesis of both lines of
cases. There is no evidence that Dr. Katz and petitioner
intended that the corporation’s role was that of an agent for Dr.
Katz. Furthermore, petitioner was not the “shell” corporation as
in Roubik v. Commissioner, supra, that provided no services. The
corporation maintained its own bank account, separate from the
accounts of Dr. and Mrs. Katz. It bought and put into service
equipment and claimed tax deductions resulting from equipment
that Dr. Katz used in performing services for the corporation.5
It had employees (other than Dr. Katz) who aided and assisted in
the services provided and paid employment taxes on and for these
employees. It prepared bills and collected payments for the
services rendered by the corporation. Under these circumstances
the corporate identity, vis-�-vis Dr. Katz, cannot be ignored.
5 See petitioner’s 1996 corporate return that shows the
purchase of a panoramic x-ray machine.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011