- 46 -
respective disputed property expenses relating to the Caroline
County farm and the Virginia Beach property that we have found
Delaware Corporation did not own during the years in question, it
is well established that when a corporation confers an economic
benefit on a stockholder in his or her capacity as such, without
an expectation of reimbursement, that benefit constitutes a
constructive dividend to the stockholder. E.g., Hagaman v.
Commissioner, 958 F.2d 684, 690 (6th Cir. 1992), affg. in part
and remanding in part on another ground T.C. Memo. 1987-549;
Magnon v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 980, 993-994 (1980). The exis-
tence of a constructive dividend is a question of fact. Hagaman
v. Commissioner, supra; Loftin & Woodard, Inc. v. United States,
577 F.2d 1206, 1215 (5th Cir. 1978). Generally, a corporation
may not claim a deduction in computing its taxable income for a
payment that constitutes a constructive dividend to its stock-
holder. See Hillsboro Natl. Bank v. Commissioner, 460 U.S. 370,
392-393 (1983); Va. Natl. Bank v. United States, 450 F.2d 1155,
1157-1158 (4th Cir. 1971); Berkley Mach. Works & Foundry, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 422 F.2d 362 (4th Cir. 1970), affg. per curiam T.C.
Memo. 1968-278.
On the record before us, we find that petitioners have
failed to carry their burden of establishing that during 1994 and
1995 Ms. Havens intended to reimburse Delaware Corporation for
its payments of the respective disputed property expenses with
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011