Comtek Expositions, Inc. - Page 50

                                       - 50 -                                         
               Section 162(a)(1) allows as a deduction all the ordinary and           
          necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in              
          carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable                   
          allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal                   
          services actually rendered.                                                 
               Petitioner has presented no financial records of the                   
          business operations of ECI and Crocus.  The incompleteness of the           
          record has been aggravated by respondent’s unexplained failure to           
          follow through with discovery after the Court granted                       
          respondent’s application for a letter of request authorizing a              
          foreign deposition.  The stipulated facts in this case present a            
          mysterious world where real-life agreements are disregarded,                
          financial records are nowhere to be found, and a myriad of other            
          relevant information is absent.  Although both petitioner and               
          respondent have agreed that disregarding the royalty agreement              
          and ECI should not have an adverse effect on either party, the              
          “black hole” surrounding the financial operations of ECI and                
          Crocus has impaired our ability to understand the business and              
          financial relationships of petitioner and Crocus.                           




               23(...continued)                                                       
          not control the vote of petitioner’s Board of Directors because             
          he was one of three directors.  There is no evidence in the                 
          record that Agalarov controlled petitioner’s business decisions.            
          Thus, we do not find that petitioner and Crocus were owned or               
          controlled by the same interests for purposes of applying sec.              
          482.                                                                        




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