Richard R. Hamlett - Page 16

                                       - 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            
               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