CMA Consolidated, Inc. & Subsidiaries, Inc. - Page 23

                                       - 111 -                                        
               assigned the contract;[24] otherwise it is he, not the                 
               contract, or the assignee, that is producing the                       
               contractual income--it is his income, and he is just                   
               shifting it to someone else in order to avoid paying                   
               income tax on it.  To state the point differently, an                  
               anticipatory assignment of income, that is, an                         
               assignment of income not yet generated, as distinct                    
               from the assignment of an income-generating contract or                
               property right, does not shift the tax liability from                  
               the assignor’s shoulders, Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S.                 
               112, * * * (1940); Boris I. Bittker et al., Federal                    
               Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders � 7.07                
               (4th ed. 1979), unless, as we said, the duty to produce                
               the income is assigned also, so that the assignor is                   
               out of the income-producing picture.  In Lucas v. Earl,                
               [281 U.S. 111 (1930)] where the taxpayer had assigned                  
               an interest in his future income to his wife, the                      
               [Supreme] Court held that when the income came in, it                  
               was his income, because it was generated by his                        
               efforts, including his decisions about what to charge                  
               for his services and what expenses to incur.  See also                 
               Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 608-10, * * *                    
               (1948); Greene v. United States, supra, 13 F.3d at 582.                
               Similarly, the income on the contract with ADIA [the S                 
               corporation’s client] was generated by the exertions of                
               Inc. [the S corporation], not of Ltd. [ the Bermuda                    
               offshore corporation]                                                  
          The Court of Appeals also explained that the taxpayer’s position            
          in that case was weak because, among other things, the Bermuda              
          offshore corporation was the taxpayer’s alter ego and it was                
          doubtful whether there ever was any assignment of the contract to           
          the Bermuda offshore corporation.  Id. at 920.                              





               24Income the assignor had already earned would be recognized           
          by and taxed to the assignor under the assignment of income                 
          doctrine.  Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 (1940); Schneer v.             
          Commissioner, 97 T.C. 643, 648 (1991).                                      





Page:  Previous  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011