- 9 -
Discussion
The first issue is whether the business activity described
was the activity of Omnitec Missouri, as respondent contends, or
the activity of Omnitec Nevada, as petitioner contends.
Respondent determined that the taxpayer was Omnitec
Missouri, and the notice of deficiency was issued to Omnitec
Missouri. The Court sustains that finding. The record shows
that Omnitec Missouri was actively engaged in a trade or business
activity. The bank statements offered into evidence support such
a conclusion as well as the invoices to customers or clients who
were provided services by Omnitec, Inc., which was based in St.
Louis, Missouri, including the testimony of the two witnesses at
trial who were called by Mr. Lammert. There was a Web site for
Omnitec, Inc., which listed a St. Louis, Missouri, address, with
no indication of any other Omnitec Corp. at some other location.
The statements, bills, and invoices that were issued by Omnitec
also provided the same information.
It is very clear to the Court, on the record presented, that
the business that held itself out to the general public and its
patrons as Omnitec, Inc., was Omnitec Missouri. Moreover,
Omnitec Missouri was the corporation engaged in the trade or
business activity that was described at trial, and there is no
evidence to support the contention that the activity in question
was that of Omnitec Nevada. Additionally, there is no evidence
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011