- 5 -
determining petitioner’s Federal income tax. Petitioner contends
that such a determination is one that must be made by the
judicial branch of Government and in particular by an Article III
judge. Apparently, petitioner’s premise is that the disregarding
of his entities for tax purposes is tantamount to the dissolution
of the entities.
Petitioner’s position is without foundation or support. For
purposes of Federal income taxation, respondent may make
determinations disregarding the form of the transaction and/or
that income may not be assigned to another and/or that an entity
may be ignored or disregarded. See Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111
(1930). These principles have been extant for more than 70
years. Petitioner has concocted a theory by which he attempts to
attack collaterally the authority of the Commissioner to make
such determinations. In light of established precedent, we find
petitioner’s theory and reasoning to be wholly without support
and frivolous.
Petitioner advances the same reasoning in his argument that
Judges of this Court are without authority and/or subject matter
jurisdiction to make decisions regarding trusts or other
entities. This Court is statutorily authorized and empowered to
make decisions regarding petitioner’s income tax liability and
whether respondent’s determination to disregard an entity in that
context is in error. Petitioner, however, has not chosen to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011