Eldon R. Kenseth and Susan M. Kenseth - Page 34

                                        - 34 -                                          
         in some real-world instances.  The problem arises not from the                 
         statute, but rather from the court-made elaboration of the                     
         assignment of income doctrine and from our refusal to reexamine                
         the rules that we have devised.  I agree with the majority that                
         the Congress has the power to revise the statute to reduce or                  
         eliminate the effect of court-made errors, but the courts also                 
         have the right and obligation to correct their own errors.                     
              In Teschner v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 1003 (1962), a majority              
         of this Court reexamined several of the seminal cases, rejected                
         respondent’s efforts to analyze by slogan,9 and determined that                

               9In Teschner v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 1003, 1007 (1962), we              
          explained as follows:                                                         
                    In his ruling, the respondent declared, “The basic                  
               rule in determining to whom an item of income is                         
               taxable is that income is taxable to the one who earns                   
               it.”  If by this statement the respondent means that                     
               income is in all events includible in the gross income                   
               of whomsoever generates or creates the income by virtue                  
               of his own effort, the respondent is wrong.  If this                     
               were the law, agents, conduits, fiduciaries, and others                  
               in a similar capacity would be personally taxable on                     
               the proceeds of their efforts.  The charity fund-raiser                  
               would be taxable on sums contributed as the result of                    
               his efforts.  The employee would be taxable on income                    
               generated for his employer by his efforts.  Such                         
               results, completely at variance with every accepted                      
               concept of Federal income taxation, demonstrate the                      
               fallacy of the premise.                                                  
                    If, on the other hand, the respondent used the                      
               term “earn,” not in such a broad sense, but in the                       
               commonly accepted usage of “to acquire by labor,                         
               service, or performance; to deserve and receive                          
               compensation” (Webster’s New International                               
               Dictionary),4 then the rule is intelligible but does                     
               not support the conclusion reached by the respondent                     

Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011