- 20 - assert that Mr. Huber, as the corporation’s sole employee, was required to be available for duty 24 hours a day. Waterfall Farms leased the Huber farm to Mr. Huber. Waterfall Farms contracted with Mr. Huber as a tenant, not as its employee, to perform all necessary work on the Huber farm. It is well settled that “Ordinarily, taxpayers are bound by the form of the transaction they have chosen; taxpayers may not in hindsight recast the transaction as one that they might have made in order to obtain tax advantages.” Framatome Connectors USA Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 32, 70 (2002) (citing Estate of Leavitt v. Commissioner, 875 F.2d 420, 423 (4th Cir. 1989), affg. 90 T.C. 206 (1988), and Grojean v. Commissioner, 248 F.3d 572, 576 (7th Cir. 2001), affg. T.C. Memo. 1999-425). Here, inasmuch as Mr. Huber farmed the Huber farm as a tenant, and not as an employee of Waterfall Farms, the food and lodging in question were not furnished to Mr. Huber as a corporate employee for the convenience of his employer. Thus, the food and rent at issue are not section 119(a) meal and lodging expenses. 2. Inclusion of Payments in the Hubers’ Gross Income When a corporation makes an expenditure that primarily benefits the corporation’s shareholders, the amount of the expenditure may be taxed to the shareholder as a constructive dividend. Hood v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 172 (2000); Magnon v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 980, 993-994 (1980); Am. Insulation Corp.Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011