- 52 -
wishes of, such stockholder.21 On the record before us, we find
that petitioners have failed to carry their burden of establish-
ing that Delaware Corporation’s payments during 1994 and 1995,
respectively, of the disputed child care expenses were not made
at the direction of, or to satisfy the personal wishes of, Mr.
Barber. On that record, we further find that petitioners have
failed to carry their burden of establishing that during 1994 and
1995, respectively, Mr. Barber intended to reimburse Delaware
Corporation for its payments of the disputed child care expenses.
On the record before us, we find that petitioners have failed to
carry their burden of establishing that Delaware Corporation’s
payments during 1994 and 1995, respectively, of the disputed
child care expenses did not confer an economic benefit on Mr.
Barber for those years.
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 child care expenses do
not constitute constructive dividends to Mr. Barber for those
years and (2) that Delaware Corporation is entitled to deduct
such expenses for those years.
21See, e.g., Hufnagle v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-119;
Bongiovanni v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1976-131.
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011