- 13 -
contradicted by the documentary evidence in the record. See
Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 212 (1992).
In their brief, petitioners argue that Navis was just one of
many “ventures” operated by petitioner, and that Navis “remained
dormant and was only used for interacting with potential
partners”, with the purpose of being available as a corporate
entity for any one of petitioner’s ventures should the need
arise. However, the documentary evidence demonstrates that the
correspondence that was sent and received under Navis’s name
refers to various products or proposals offered by Navis; these
products or proposals have the same names as what petitioners
assert were separate business ventures. We conclude that Navis
itself was offering these products or proposals as a part of its
business activities. Petitioners further argue:
Despite respondent’s contention * * * that petitioner
“states, however, that Navis was nothing more than a ‘shell
corporation,’ and was not a separate entity from Dale
Sundby, sole proprietor,” petitioner never made that
statement. In fact, petitioner stated the opposite, that he
was CEO of Navis, a separate entity from the sole
proprietorship. As CEO of Navis, it was not inappropriate
for the petitioner to hold himself out as such. Using Navis
provided for legitimacy in signing agreements with other
corporations. Petitioner had no obligation to disclose to
any of these parties that Navis had not yet received a
transfer of any intellectual property * * * from the sole
proprietorship, had no checking account, etc.
Because we have found that Navis rather than petitioner was
carrying on the trade or business, petitioners’ distinction is
one without a difference. If petitioners argue that Navis was a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011