- 19 -
for Federal tax purposes even if it is valid under State law.
See Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935); Neely v.
United States, 775 F.2d at 1094; Zmuda v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d
1417, 1421 (9th Cir. 1984), affg. 79 T.C. 714 (1982).
4. Petitioner's Other Contentions
Petitioner contends that he is not liable for tax on amounts
paid to Arivada unless respondent proves that Arivada is the
transferee of petitioner under section 6901. Petitioner also
contends that we may consider whether, under the Federal Debt
Collection Act (FDCA), 28 U.S.C. sections 3001-3015, and the
Federal Fraudulent Transfers Act (FFTA), 28 U.S.C. sections 3301-
3308, Arivada is a transferee of petitioner. We disagree. These
authorities are irrelevant to the issues before us.
Petitioner contends that Chisum had the only copy of the
Arivada trust instrument and that petitioner was prejudiced by
the Court's severing of petitioner's case from Arivada's on the
morning of trial and the day that Arivada filed a petition in
bankruptcy. Petitioner contends that he could not have compelled
Chisum to produce the trust instrument absent a subpoena and that
he had insufficient time to do so after the Court severed the two
cases. Petitioner’s contention assumes that Chisum would not
cooperate voluntarily with him; petitioner did not make that
showing. On the contrary, it appears from the record that they
were cooperating fully.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011