- 10 - Demetree and Associates to David and his family. David and Ms. Hinkle’s testimony established that the disbursements were not made or intended to be made for any services rendered and that David was under no obligation to perform services. See Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34, 36-37 (1937) (holding that the controlling factor to distinguish between a gift and compensation is the intent of the payor). Rather, the transfers to David were consistent with Arthur and Naomi’s established pattern of making frequent and substantial gifts and loans to David and his family. Accordingly, we reject respondent’s determinations relating to 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and prior to Arthur’s death in 1991. David, however, failed to report income relating to his 1991 and 1992 property management activities. See sec. 61(a); James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 219 (1961). Therefore, we sustain respondent’s determinations relating to those years. B. The Brahman Inn Respondent contends that the amounts Ms. Hinkle transferred to David were compensation for his management services related to the Brahman Inn. David and Ms. Hinkle’s testimony established that the amounts he received were loans and that the management responsibilities relating to the Brahman Inn were handled by an onsite manager and supervised by Demetree and Associates. Accordingly, we reject respondent’s determinations.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011