- 47 -
respect to the Caroline County farm and the Virginia Beach
property that we have found she owned during the years in ques-
tion. On that record, we further find that petitioners have
failed to carry their burden of establishing that during 1994 and
1995 Delaware Corporation’s payments of such expenses did not
confer an economic benefit on Ms. Havens.
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that petitioners have failed to carry their burden of
establishing (1) that Delaware Corporation’s payments during 1994
and 1995, respectively, of the disputed property expenses do not
constitute constructive dividends to Ms. Havens for those years
and (2) that Delaware Corporation is entitled to deduct such
expenses for those years. Based upon that examination, we
further find that petitioners have failed to carry their burden
of establishing that Delaware Corporation is entitled for 1994 to
the 1994 Virginia Beach property depreciation deduction and for
1995 to the 1995 Virginia Beach property depreciation deduction.
See sec. 167(a).
Legal Fees With Respect to the Mitchums Creek Property
In support of their position with respect to the legal fees
with respect to the Mitchums Creek property, petitioners argue:
The payment of the legal fee by Delaware did not result
in a constructive dividend to Barber because he had
already contracted with Delaware that it would pay all
expenses in recovering the house as part of the consid-
eration for the purchase. * * *
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011