Comtek Expositions, Inc. - Page 49

                                       - 49 -                                         
          according to Bortzov, Crocus was dissatisfied with the pre-                 
          January 1, 1995, business arrangement.                                      
               There is no evidence Crocus received, had any control over,            
          or had rights to make withdrawals from the 90 percent of trade              
          show receipts collected by petitioner and ECI.  Petitioner’s                
          argument is undermined by the fact that Crocus did not bear the             
          burden of its direct expenses because those expenses were                   
          reimbursed.  Petitioner provided no information about the                   
          financial records of Crocus and ECI to substantiate its argument            
          for a greater deduction or higher allocation of net profits to              
          Crocus as a compensation deduction.  We therefore reject                    
          petitioner’s request to allocate to Crocus 50 percent or more of            
          the net profits reported in the stipulation of facts.23                     

               22(...continued)                                                       
          which are allocable to petitioner.  If Expocentr rent payments              
          are included in the total expenses for foreign trade shows,                 
          Crocus’s share of such expenses is less than 38 percent for the             
          last 7 months of the fiscal year ended July 31, 1995, and less              
          than 27 percent for the fiscal year ended July 31, 1996.                    
               23We shall not accede to petitioner’s request that we use              
          sec. 482 to allocate income between petitioner and Crocus because           
          we find that petitioner and Crocus were not controlled or owned             
          by the same interests as required for the application of sec.               
          482.  Control for sec. 482 purposes includes “any kind of                   
          control, direct or indirect, whether legally enforceable or not,            
          and however exercisable or exercised * * *.”  It is the reality             
          of the control which is decisive, not its form or the mode of its           
          exercise.  A presumption of control arises if income or                     
          deductions have been arbitrarily shifted.”  Sec. 1.482-1(i)(4),             
          Income Tax Regs.; see also B. Forman Co. v. Commissioner, 453               
          F.2d 1144, 1152-1153 (2d Cir. 1972), affg. in part and revg. in             
          part 54 T.C. 912 (1970).  Although Agalarov owned 100 percent of            
          Crocus, he owned only 33.33 percent of petitioner.  Agalarov did            
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011