Dennis Katz, D.D.S., P.C. - Page 9

                                        - 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