- 18 - convinced that Arivada or Chisum had legal title to petitioner's business. Petitioner contends that East Point and S A Finance are beneficiaries of Arivada and that an economic interest passed to them from Arivada. The record does not support his contention. Petitioner did not offer any credible evidence showing that East Point had a beneficial or economic interest in Arivada in 1993 or 1994, that East Point's alleged beneficial interest in Arivada changed from 100 percent in 1993 to 80 percent in 1994, that S A Finance had a beneficial interest in Arivada in 1994, that East Point and S A Finance had employer identification numbers, or that Arivada distributed to East Point or S A Finance any money or property as a result of this beneficial interest. Jones-George believed that Chisum could control those assets if she and petitioner transferred them to Arivada. However, the fact that she believed the trust would have substance does not mean that it did. 3. Whether Arizona Law Determines Whether Arivada Is a Sham for Federal Tax Purposes Petitioner contends that, under sections 643, 651, and 652 of the Internal Revenue Code, Arizona law controls whether Arivada is a sham for Federal tax purposes. Petitioner contends that, under Arizona law, the person claiming that the trust or other entity is not valid bears the burden of proof. We disagree that Arizona law controls here. We need not recognize an entityPage: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011