-27-
Nor do we find any evidence of payment of rent by Arbor to
petitioner, so as to justify writing off the office expenses by
him personally, in his capacity as a landlord, under section 212.
Sec. 1.212-1(h), Income Tax Regs. (second sentence). As
enunciated by the Supreme Court, the “doctrine of corporate
entity” fills a useful purpose in business life, and whether the
purpose be to gain an advantage under law of the State of
incorporation, so long as that purpose is the equivalent of
business activity, the corporation remains a separate taxable
entity. Moline Props., Inc. v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 436, 438
(1943).
Short of disregarding the corporate integrity of Arbor for
petitioner’s benefit, we see no basis for allowing petitioner to
personally expense Arbor’s office costs. We hold that the
$14,065 of office expenses may not be deducted by petitioner.
We have considered all arguments of the parties related to
our holdings set forth herein and, to the extent not discussed
herein, find those arguments to be irrelevant or without merit.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Last modified: May 25, 2011