- 163 -
this aspect of petitioner's contentions because it is not at
issue.
Second, petitioner contends that there was an "agreement"
between himself or CTC and Diesel Power to split commissions in
various percentages. This is the primary theory by means of
which petitioner attempts to justify attributing much of the
income in question on the CTC receipts journal to Diesel Power.
We note that there were a significant number of transfers of
commissions between Diesel Power and CTC during the years at
issue, which tends to support petitioner's argument that there
was some kind of unwritten understanding between Diesel Power and
CTC concerning the splitting of commissions. However, this
"agreement", even if it did exist, is irrelevant to the issue
before us. A voluntary agreement to relinquish the right to
receive income is insufficient. In Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111
(1930), the taxpayer entered into a contract with his wife
whereby she was entitled to one-half of his income. The Supreme
Court held that under assignment of income principles the entire
amount was taxable to the taxpayer because he could not assign
away income that he earned. Id. at 115. Hence, if petitioner
earned the commissions involved herein, he could not assign them
to Diesel Power. Accordingly, the commission split understanding
was irrelevant. We also note in connection with this alleged
splitting of commissions that there were numerous payments
Page: Previous 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011