- 23 -
(quoting Cepeda v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-62); see also
Walker v. Commissioner, supra. Respondent has shown the
requisite source of income for 1996 by establishing that
petitioner during that year received the $1,149,048 from BBL’s
Sanwa account. Respondent has also established that petitioner
was the beneficial owner of BBL and its only shareholder in fact.
We view the $1,149,048 transfer from the Sanwa account to
the personal Swiss bank account as a dividend to petitioner,
BBL’s only beneficial and true owner. Although petitioner was
not BBL’s ostensible shareholder, she was its beneficial, and
only actual, shareholder. BBL’s ostensible shareholder,
Ghassemi, had no control of BBL, exercised no daily management
functions, had no personal sums of money at risk in BBL, and was
BBL’s owner, president, and CEO in name only. In fact, the only
function that Ghassemi served with respect to BBL was to sign the
necessary corporate paperwork and blank checks as presented to
her by the Bussells. Ghassemi even acknowledged at trial that
petitioner was “the boss” and that she (Ghassemi) signed any
document which either of the Bussells presented to her.
Any lingering doubt as to the true owner of BBL is dispelled
by its unique history. From 1981 to 1991, the dermatology
practice was operated by a single professional corporation which
passed on most if not all of its profits to petitioner. In 1992,
with the looming threat of unpaid taxes from the 1980s,
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011