-226-                                                   
            corporation can act only through its employees and agents, this                             
            Court set forth two requirements that must be met before the                                
            corporation, rather than the service-performing individual, can                             
            be considered to control the earning of the income.  These                                  
            requirements are:  (1) The corporation must have had the right to                           
            direct or control the individual’s activities in some meaningful                            
            manner, and (2) there must exist between the corporation and the                            
            person or entity using the services a contract or similar                                   
            indicium recognizing the corporation’s controlling position.                                
            Id. at 890-891.                                                                             
                  The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the                            
            Federal Circuit apply a more flexible facts and circumstances                               
            approach.  Schuster v. Commissioner, 800 F.2d 672, 677-678 (7th                             
            Cir. 1986), affg. 84 T.C. 764 (1985); Fogarty v. United States,                             
            780 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1986).                                                       
                  In United States v. Newell, 239 F.3d 917 (7th Cir. 2001),                             
            the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed both the                             
            assignment of income doctrine and concepts of alter ego in a                                
            factual setting analogous to the facts presented in these cases.                            
            In Newell, the taxpayer was president and a 50-percent                                      
            shareholder of LPM, Inc. (Inc.), a commodity trader.  Pursuant to                           
            a contract, Inc. earned a fee of $1.3 million from a client                                 
            during 1993, and the taxpayer directed the client to pay the fee                            
            to LPM, Ltd. (Ltd.), a Bermuda corporation.  Neither the                                    
Page:  Previous   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011