- 3 - documents. When petitioner did agree to meet with respondent, petitioner did not effectively engage in meaningful preparation of his case for trial as required by this Court’s Rules and pretrial order. Respondent points out that, in general, petitioner was uncooperative and failed to comply with the letter or the spirit of this Court’s Rules or its pretrial order. Petitioner assigned his income-generating activities to trusts or other entities by means of transactions that respondent determined lacked economic substance.2 The notices of deficiency, among other adjustments and explanations, contain the following explanatory paragraphs concerning petitioner’s business income and his relationship to the trusts: Since the trust arrangement is a sham with no economic substance, it is disregarded for tax purposes. Your business income is increased by the gross receipts of the Photo Art Marketing enterprises Trust and Photo Art Publishing Trust and decreased by the ordinary and necessary expenses of carrying on those business[es]. * * * Alternatively, your business income is increased because the Photo Art Marketing enterprise Trust and the Photo Art Publishing Trust are grantor trusts whose incomes are taxable to you individually. * * * * * * * * * * 2 Petitioner has chosen to attack the Commissioner’s and this Court’s jurisdiction to delve into his relationship with his trust and has adduced no evidence to show that the substance of the Government’s determination is in error. Petitioner admits, in response to respondent’s request for admissions, that he transferred his business to the trust(s).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011