Legal Opinion
Le v. Commissioner
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 12, 2005No. 03-73818Published
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM**
The Tax Court’s factual finding that Dr. Le operated his medical practice as a cor*804poration during 1990 and 1991 is not clearly erroneous. Indeed, the evidence supporting this conclusion is overwhelming.
The corporation’s failure to comply with California’s statutory requirements necessary to maintain its corporate privileges does not shield it from its federal tax obligations. See O’Neill v. C.I.R., 271 F.2d 44, 49 (9th Cir.1959). In such circumstances, the Commissioner may recognize a de facto corporation for federal tax purposes. Id. Moreover, a taxpayer may not be heard to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Joseph R. Bolker v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Herald A. O'Neill and G. Evelyn O'neill, His Wife v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- Maletis v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
- Thomas K. McManus and Margaret F. McManus v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Estate of John C. Gutleben, Deceased, United California Bank, and Vera B. Gutleben v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Estate of Eleanor and Nelson Chick, Deceased, Nelse Chick Siler v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978