Lou Deserio - Page 5

                                        - 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