Caralan Trust, et al. - Page 25




                                       - 25 -                                         
          Shirleys had earnings from providing computer consulting services           
          that they failed to include in gross income (and pay tax on).               
                    (2)  Fundamental Principles                                       
               A fundamental principle of tax law is that income is taxed             
          to the person who earns it.  See Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337            
          U.S. 733, 739-740 (1949); Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930).               
          Recently, in Barmes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-155, we                
          applied assignment of income principles to tax the income of a              
          business to a taxpayer who had attempted an anticipatory                    
          assignment of that income to a trust.  We had this to say:                  
               Attempts to subvert * * * [the fundamental principle                   
               that income is taxed to the person who earns it] by                    
               diverting income away from its true earner to another                  
               entity by means of contractual arrangements, however                   
               cleverly drafted, are not recognized as dispositive for                
               Federal income tax purposes, regardless of whether such                
               arrangements are otherwise valid under State law.  See                 
               Vercio v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1246, 1253 (1980); see                 
               also Schulz v. Commissioner, 686 F.2d 490, 493 (7th                    
               Cir. 1982), affg. T.C. Memo. 1980-568.  The "true                      
               earner" of income is the person or entity who                          
               controlled the earning of such income, rather than the                 
               person or entity who received the income.  See Vercio                  
               v. Commissioner, supra at 1253 (citing Wesenberg v.                    
               Commissioner, 69 T.C. 1005, 1010 (1978)); see also                     
               Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. at 604 ("The crucial                  
               question remains whether the assignor retains                          
               sufficient power and control over the assigned property                
               or over receipt of the income to make it reasonable to                 
               treat him as the recipient of the income for tax                       
               purposes.").  * * *  [Id.]                                             
          Pursuant to a second fundamental principle, we may ignore a                 
          transfer in trust as a sham where the transfer has not, in fact,            
          altered any cognizable economic relationship between the putative           






Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011