Paul F. and Eleanore M. Nichols - Page 2




                                         -2-                                          
               1.  Whether the trusts petitioners used during 1997 and 1998           
          should be disregarded for Federal income tax purposes because the           
          trusts were shams.  We hold they should.                                    
               2.  Whether petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related            
          penalties under section 6662(a).  We hold they are.                         
               Unless otherwise noted, section references are to the                  
          applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code.  Rule                     
          references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.            
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some facts were stipulated and are so found.  The stipulated           
          facts and the exhibits submitted therewith are incorporated                 
          herein by this reference.  Petitioners resided in Fair Oaks,                
          California, when they petitioned the Court.  They filed 1997 and            
          1998 Federal income tax returns on October 15, 1998, and on July            
          28, 1999, respectively.  They did not report on those tax returns           
          Social Security benefits, income from self-employment, and income           
          received by the JREP Trust, PERJ Trust, and CSM Business Trust              
          (collectively referred to as trusts1).                                      
               Petitioners established the trusts on January 1, 1992.                 
          Petitioners were the initial trustees of CSM Business Trust (CSM            
          Trust), and Mr. Nichols was an initial trustee of PERJ Trust and            



               1 We use the words “trust” and “trustee” in our findings of            
          fact for narrative convenience.  We do not intend our use of                
          those terms to indicate any conclusion about the substance of the           
          transactions at issue.                                                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011