- 16 -
describe the legal pigeonhole that would apply if we were to
agree with petitioner’s claim-of-right contentions.
If the latter, then the short answer is that we have
rejected petitioner’s claim-of-right contentions and concluded
that petitioner received the $100,000 under a claim of right. If
the former, then the short answer is that there are no indicia of
a loan, and we conclude that the form that petitioner used in
1996--a sale--correctly follows the substance of what petitioner
did.
We hold for respondent on this issue.
B. $100,000 as a Gift
Petitioner contends, in the alternative, that the $100,000
that he received from Parker was a gift, and thus, was excludable
from gross income under section 102(a). Petitioner argues that,
because the bankruptcy court declared the transaction between
Parker and himself void ab initio, petitioner never transferred
ownership of the corporations to Parker; thus, petitioner
reasons, Parker’s intent in transferring the money to petitioner
must have been out of disinterested generosity because she was
under no obligation to do so, and she received nothing in return.
Respondent maintains that the $100,000 that petitioner
received from Parker does not meet the definition of a gift, and
thus, is not excludable from gross income under section 102(a).
We agree with respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011