- 24 -
petitioner abruptly and drastically altered her corporate
structure. Her old professional corporation was scrapped and was
replaced by three nominee corporations in an arrangement which
even her tax attorney admitted, while testifying under oath,
illegally attempted to disguise petitioner’s earnings from the
provision of her medical services. These corporations were
formed with the express purpose of defrauding petitioner’s
creditors, including respondent, and petitioner actively
participated in this bankruptcy scheme, frequently asking
specific questions as to it and making minute tactical decisions
regarding the concealment of her assets and income. Petitioner
even boasted at one time that “I worked too damn hard for this
money to lose it to taxes”.
Petitioner invites the Court to disregard the existence of
BBL and conclude that its $1,149,048 of income, which is all
attributable to 1993, 1994, and 1995, is, if at all, actually
taxable in those 3 nonnotice years. We decline petitioner’s
invitation. Petitioner purposely chose the corporate form and
actions of BBL, and she may not now argue against them. See
Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473, 477 (1940). Even if she could
challenge the existence of BBL in this proceeding, the record
before us convinces us that BBL was in fact a bona fide
corporation. BBL owned assets in its name, it held board
meetings, and it employed the dermatology practice’s medical
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011