- 8 - 1. Whether Petitioners’ Trusts Are Recognized for Federal Tax Purposes Respondent contends that petitioners’ trusts should not be recognized for Federal income tax purposes because they are shams. Petitioners contend that petitioners’ trusts are not shams. A trust may be a sham for Federal tax purposes if the grantor retains control over the property or income placed in the trust and does not change how the property or income is treated. Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 604 (1948); United States v. Noske, 117 F.3d 1053, 1059 (8th Cir. 1997). We generally do not recognize a trust for Federal tax purposes if the grantor keeps substantially unfettered powers of disposition or beneficial enjoyment of trust property. See United States v. Noske, supra; Paulson v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 789, 790 (8th Cir. 1993), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1991-508; United States v. Buttorff, 761 F.2d 1056, 1061 (5th Cir. 1985); Schulz v. Commissioner, 686 F.2d 490, 495 (7th Cir. 1982), affg. T.C. Memo. 1980-568; Vnuk v. Commissioner, 621 F.2d 1318, 1320-1321 (8th Cir. 1980), affg. T.C. Memo. 1979-164. Petitioners controlled and dealt with the alleged trust property as if it were their own. Petitioner retained substantial enjoyment of the trust property as shown by the fact that he had signature authority over the bank accounts of petitioners’ trusts in 1996 and for part of 1997, and that he paid his personal expenses from those bank accounts in 1997.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011