Eldon R. Kenseth and Susan M. Kenseth - Page 31

                                        - 31 -                                          

              CHABOT, J., dissenting:  The majority opinion sets forth                  
         supra at note 3 and the accompanying text (majority op. pp. 13-                
         15) concerns as to the injustice resulting from the intersection               
         of court-made doctrine and statute law--in particular the minimum              
         tax.  The majority opinion states that “these policy issues are                
         in the province of Congress” (majority op. p. 15) and refuses to               
         modify court-made doctrine.  Although I agree with the majority                
         that “we are not authorized to rewrite the statute” (majority op.              
         p. 15), I reject the idea that we are disabled from correcting                 
         court-made error, and so I dissent.                                            
              The assignment of income doctrine was created by the courts               
         to deal with situations where the taxpayer figuratively turned                 
         his or her back on income that would have come to and been                     
         taxable to the taxpayer, but for the taxpayer’s effort to shift                
         the receipt and taxability of the income.  See the three seminal               
         opinions cited by the majority (majority op. p. 27)--Lucas v.                  
         Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) (husband assigned to wife half of                    
         salary and fees that he earned; Federal taxing statute treats                  
         assigned amounts as taxpayer’s income); Helvering v. Eubank, 311               
         U.S. 122 (1940) (taxpayer assigned to corporate trustees                       
         insurance renewal commissions; taxpayer remains taxable on the                 
         insurance renewal commissions he had earned); Helvering v. Horst,              
         311 U.S. 112 (1940) (taxpayer assigned to son negotiable bond                  

Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011