- 44 -
Norton v. Commissioner, supra; Lund v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2000-334. This factor favors respondent.
2. McKenzie Trust
The evidence on record with respect to Mr. Boatright’s
influence and control over the McKenzie Trust is limited to the
appearance of his signature on various trust documents, including
the trust’s declaration and indenture, the checks drawn on the
trust’s account, and the trust’s income tax returns. The record
lacks any credible evidence that Mr. Boatright functioned as an
independent trustee. Mr. Boatright did not testify at trial, and
we conclude, based on his failure to do so, that his testimony
would have been unfavorable to petitioners. Wichita Terminal
Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. at 1165; Christal v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-255.
It is apparent from the record that petitioner controlled
the operation of the McKenzie Trust. Pursuant to the General
Agreement, the McKenzie Trust granted petitioner broad managerial
powers over the trust, which he exercised by controlling the day-
to-day operation of the automobile restoration business. In
fact, no one other than petitioner performed any work for the
McKenzie Trust, and all of the income earned by the trust was
attributable to his expertise.
Therefore, we find that no independent trustee had any
meaningful role in operating the McKenzie Trust. See Zmuda v.
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011