- 37 -
that Delaware Corporation is not entitled to deduct; and
(5) petitioners are liable for the respective years at issue for
the accuracy-related penalties.
It is petitioners’ position that respondent erred in deter-
mining: (1) That Delaware Corporation’s payments of (a) the
disputed property expenses, (b) the legal fees with respect to
the Mitchums Creek property, and (c) the disputed child care
expenses constitute constructive dividends to Ms. Havens or Mr.
Barber, as the case may be, that Delaware Corporation is not
entitled to deduct;14 (2) that Delaware Corporation is not enti-
tled to the Virginia Beach property depreciation deductions; and
(3) that petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penal-
ties at issue. In support of their position, petitioners rely
on, inter alia, Mr. Barber’s testimony. We found his testimony
to be questionable, vague, general, conclusory, and/or uncorrobo-
rated in certain material respects. We shall not rely on any
14Petitioners do not argue that Ms. Havens and Mr. Barber
did not receive constructive dividends during the years at issue
because of insufficient earnings and profits of Delaware Corpora-
tion. See secs. 301(c)(1), 316(a). Nor do petitioners contend
that Delaware Corporation intended (1) the payments of the
disputed property expenses to be compensation to Ms. Havens, and
(2) the payments of the legal fees with respect to the Mitchums
Creek property and the disputed child care expenses to be compen-
sation to Mr. Barber that is deductible by it for the respective
years in question. See Paula Constr. Co. v. Commissioner, 58
T.C. 1055, 1058-1059 (1972), affd. without published opinion 474
F.2d 1345 (5th Cir. 1973).
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011