- 8 - restructure the transaction with the benefit of hindsight in applying the substance over form doctrine. Id. at 542; see also Commissioner v. Natl. Alfalfa Dehydrating & Milling Co., 417 U.S. 134, 149 (1974) (“while a taxpayer is free to organize his affairs as he chooses, nevertheless, once having done so, he must accept the tax consequences of his choice, whether contemplated or not, * * * and may not enjoy the benefit of some other route he might have chosen to follow but did not”); Estate of Rosenblatt v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-12 (“We cannot treat lightly the formal manner in which properties are held, lest we subject legal titles to unnecessary uncertainties and complicate the administration of law.”). The estate has not produced sufficient credible evidence to show that the ownership of the property is different from the form set forth in all the relevant documents and, therefore, has not proved that the substance of the transaction was different from its form. The evidence offered on the estate’s behalf is Joseph S. Maniglia’s testimony and that of his spouse and his accountant. At trial, Joseph S. Maniglia stated that “Every real estate broker on Charles Street in Boston knew I was one of the owners of that building.” We agree that, as the trustee of the Fam-Trust, Joseph S. Maniglia would be the legal holder of title to the property. However, the estate does not appear to appreciate the fact that as trustee, Joseph S. Maniglia wouldPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011