- 8 -
petitioner’s arrangement with HEH and Mercury Solar.3 In
Richter, based on former section 48(f), the legislative history,
and section 1.48-6, Income Tax Regs., we said that an energy tax
credit must be allocated among a trust and its beneficiaries on
the same basis that the trust’s income is allocable to each. Id.
The taxpayer in Richter contended that $650 of HEH’s income
was allocable to him in 1995, the year in issue, because HEH was
required to allocate $650 to him under the agreement. We
disagreed because HEH was required to pay the taxpayer $650 only
if the taxpayer satisfied certain conditions, and we found that
the taxpayer had not satisfied those conditions in 1995. Id.
The taxpayer in Richter also contended that an amended 1995
HEH return (prepared after the taxpayer had filed the petition in
that case) established that HEH had allocated $650 of income to
him in 1995.4 We disagreed because we found the HEH amended
return for 1995 and attached Schedule K-1 to be untrustworthy.
Id. We held that the taxpayer was not entitled to energy tax
credits because he had not shown that any of HEH’s income was
allocable to him or that HEH had allocated any of its investment
in qualifying energy property to him in the year in issue. Id.
3 We discuss petitioners’ argument that this case is
distinguishable from Richter v. Commissioner, supra, below at
par. C.
4 There was no evidence in Richter v. Commissioner, supra,
that the HEH amended return for 1995 was ever filed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011