- 19 -
the Careys for 1995, respondent explains those adjustments as
follows:
It is determined that * * * [the trust] was created and
operated for tax avoidance purposes and has no economic
substance; therefore, it is disregarded for tax
purposes. Alternatively, it is determined that it is a
grantor trust within the meaning of sections 671-677 of
the Internal Revenue Code; therefore, the income is
taxable to you individually. It is determined that the
attempted assignment of your income to * * * [the
trust] is not recognized for federal income tax
purposes and that such income is taxable to you
individually.
In their petition, the Careys (then represented by counsel)
assign error to respondent’s assignment of trust income to them
but, in support of that assignment, aver only: “Actual gross
income has not been examined and was incorrectly re-constructed.”
On the basis of their concessions with respect to the trust
interest and business gross receipts, we assume that the Careys
no longer rely on that averment. On brief, the Careys set forth
no proposed findings of fact with respect to respondent’s
assignment of trust income to them (or with respect to any other
adjustment made by respondent). Proposed findings of fact are
required by Rule 151(e)(3). With no reference to the transcript,
any exhibit, or anything else in the record, they state, simply:
“MR. CAREY holds no interest in * * * [the trust].” After
disposing of certain legal arguments raised by the Careys, we
shall set forth the applicable law and state why we sustain
respondent’s adjustments assigning trust income to the Careys.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011