R. Scot Stokes - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         

          Memorandum Opinion of this Court dated Mar. 13, 1953; Wichita               
          Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 162 F.2d 513, 516 (10th              
          Cir. 1947), affg. 6 T.C. 1158, 1164 (1946); Cluck v.                        
          Commissioner, 105 T.C. 324, 338 (1995); Bruno v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 1990-109.                                                        
               Generally, the Court is not required to accept the                     
          self-serving testimony of interested parties.  See Day v.                   
          Commissioner, 975 F.2d 534, 538 (8th Cir. 1992); Geiger v.                  
          Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per              
          curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159; Sharwell v. Commissioner, 419 F.2d              
          1057, 1060 (6th Cir. 1969), vacating and remanding on other                 
          issues T.C. Memo. 1968-89; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74,            
          77 (1986); Surloff v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 210, 239 (1983).                
               Petitioner argues that the annuity trust constituted a valid           
          business entity that should be recognized for Federal income tax            
          purposes and that gain from sale of the pizza business to Beagley           
          and Lundell should be charged to petitioner only as annuity                 
          payments are received by petitioner and his wife beginning in the           
          year 2023.  Respondent contends that the annuity trust                      
          constituted a sham trust that lacked economic substance, that the           
          annuity trust was used only for tax avoidance purposes, and that            
          proceeds received in 1994 relating to sale of the pizza business            
          to Beagley and Lundell should be charged to petitioner.  We agree           
          with respondent.                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011