Eldon R. Kenseth and Susan M. Kenseth - Page 36

                                        - 36 -                                          
                    attributable to the person entitled to                              
                    receive it, although he assigns his right in                        
                    advance of realization, and although, in the                        
                    case of income derived from the ownership of                        
                    property, he transfers the property producing                       
                    the income to another as trustee or agent, in                       
                    either case retaining all the practical                             
                    benefits of ownership.                                              
                    Section 1(a) of the 1954 Code imposes a tax on the                  
              “income of every individual.”  Where an individual                        
              neither receives nor has the right to receive income,                     
              he is not the taxable individual within the                               
              contemplation of the statute.  There is no basis in the                   
              statute or in the decided cases for a construction at                     
              variance with this fundamental rule.                                      
                    Reviewed by the Court.                                              
                                        Decision will be entered                        
                                   for the petitioners.                                 
              The majority in the instant case tax to petitioners                       
         substantial funds that petitioners did not receive, were never                 
         entitled to receive, and never turned their backs on.  They do so              
         in the name of the assignment of income doctrine.  The majority                
         acknowledge that there may be injustice in so doing, and that the              
         injustice may well be even greater in other real-life settings                 
         than in the instant case.  They contend that precedents compel                 
         them to this result and that relief can come only from the hills               
         (Psalm 121), or at least from Capitol Hill.  But this Court has                
         shown in Teschner v. Commissioner, supra, that reexamination of                
         the origins of the assignment of income doctrine can sharpen our               
         understanding of the concepts and make more rational the                       
         application of that doctrine.  We do not lightly overrule our                  

Page:  Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011