- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011