- 20 -
taxes. In fact, however, the only funds ever transferred to
Oliver & Co. were the amounts necessary to pay back to the Haneys
“trustee fees”. In their posttrial opening brief, petitioners:
recognize that there is some doubt as to the
correctness of taking those deductions [for income of
the asphalt business not taxed because it was shown as
distributed to Oliver & Co.], since the funds they
represent remained available to AMC Trust for its
operations of Asphalt Maintenance Company, and were not
actually transferred beyond AMC’s reach. * * *
The facts found concerning Oliver & Co. establish that it was not
a bona fide charitable remainder trust. See secs. 642(c),
664(d); sec. 1.664-1(a)(4), Income Tax Regs. It was simply one
of a series of trust entities established to make taxable profits
of the asphalt business disappear. Petitioners have failed to
prove that any economic interest passed to anyone other than the
Haneys. See Markosian v. Commissioner, supra at 1244; Sparkman
v. Commissioner, supra; Edwards v. Commissioner, supra; Gouveia
v. Commissioner, supra; Castro v. Commissioner, supra.
Trust Restrictions
Our findings of fact are notably devoid of any meaningful
restrictions contained in the trust documents, because there were
no meaningful restrictions. Petitioners concede in their
pretrial memorandum: “The only affirmative restriction placed on
Petitioners’ actions by the AMC trust document is that they are
required to exercise their best judgment and discretion for the
conservation and improvement of the trust organization.” At
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011