Kevin R. Johnston - Page 15




                                       - 15 -                                         

          in petitioner’s income:  (1) Under the assignment of income                 
          doctrine; (2) because Universal was a sham; or (3) if Universal             
          was not a sham, because Universal’s income is taxable to                    
          petitioner under the grantor trust rules.  Respondent has                   
          conceded that petitioner is entitled to a small amount of trade             
          or business deductions relating to this income.                             
               Petitioner maintains that the $103,420 is Universal’s                  
          income, or in the alternative, contends that he is entitled to              
          business deductions that offset the income.                                 
               Petitioner has filed a “Motion for Summary Disposition                 
          and/or Judgment” contesting the validity and effect of the                  
          statutory notice.  Petitioner has also filed a Motion in Limine             
          contesting respondent’s ability to make certain arguments or                
          introduce certain evidence.  Because our disposition of these               
          motions could affect our consideration of the substantive issues,           
          we turn our attention to them now.                                          
          I.  Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment                                
               According to petitioner’s summary judgment motion,                     
          respondent has failed to establish a sufficient link between                

               6(...continued)                                                        
          services performed by petitioner.                                           
               The record also establishes that $1,341 of the $104,786                
          deposited in Universal’s account was paid for services performed            
          by Ms. Ghavami.  The record contains no information about the               
          proper treatment of the remaining $25 deposited in the Universal            
          account ($104,786 minus $103,420 and $1,341 equals $25).                    





Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011