Investment Research Associates - Page 152




                                       - 229 -                                         
         that should not be recognized as separate taxable entities.  In               
         the event the Court decides that the corporations were not sham               
         or dummy corporations, respondent argues in the alternative that              
         petitioners are taxable on the income under the assignment of                 
         income doctrine or pursuant to section 482.                                   
              Petitioners, on the other hand, dispute respondent's                     
         characterization of such payments as kickbacks and their                      
         attribution to Kanter, Ballard, and Lisle.  Petitioners deny that             
         any kickback schemes existed and contend that the payments from               
         the Five were properly taxable to IRA, Holding Co., or one of                 
         their subsidiaries.  Petitioners contend that all of the payments             
         were reported on the respective tax returns of IRA and Holding                
         Co. during the years at issue and that such income was properly               
         taxable to IRA, Holding Co., and/or their subsidiaries, and not               
         to Ballard, Lisle, and/or Kanter, as respondent asserts.                      
              Petitioners contend that the corporations were not shams and             
         that the assignment of income doctrine and section 482 are                    
         inapplicable.                                                                 
         II. Omitted Income                                                            
              Since all of the payments by the Five were made to entities              
         associated with and controlled by Kanter, and, from there, the                
         payments flowed through to Kanter, Ballard, and Lisle, it is                  
         appropriate to consider first whether the payments made to                    
         Kanter's entities are attributable to petitioners, because if we              






Page:  Previous  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  237  238  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011