- 6 -
Nothing in the record indicates that petitioner’s grandchild
owned any portion of the funds in the account. Instead, the
record clearly establishes that petitioner had full control over
the bank account. Copies of her bank statements show that
petitioner routinely withdrew funds for personal expenditures.
The facts of this case establish that the income from the plan
was payable to petitioner and was paid to an account to which she
directed payment and over which she exercised complete control.
Petitioner’s reliance on the alleged mistaken advice of her
tax preparer also has no bearing on her tax liability. Such
reliance might be relevant if respondent had determined penalties
or additions to tax. See, e.g., Freytag v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.
849, 888 (1987), affd. 904 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1990), affd. 501
U.S. 868 (1991); Dyckman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-79.
But no penalties or additions to tax are in issue here.
Petitioner is responsible for the deficiency in tax even though
she relied on erroneous advice. See United States v. Boyle, 469
3(...continued)
establish an irrevocable trust during the lifetime of
the depositor. It is a tentative trust merely,
revocable at will, until the depositor dies or
completes the gift in his lifetime by some unequivocal
act or declaration, such as delivery of the pass book
or notice to the beneficiary. In case the depositor
dies before the beneficiary without revocation, or some
decisive act or declaration of disaffirmance, the
presumption arises that an absolute trust was created
as to the balance on hand at the death of the
depositor.” * * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011