-223-
Helvering, 293 U.S. at 469, “the substance of transactions is to
be determined uniformly in relation to the meaning and
intendment” of the Federal tax laws. Weller v. Commissioner, 270
F.2d 294, 298 (3d Cir. 1959), affg. 31 T.C. 33 and Emmons v.
Commissioner, 31 T.C. 26 (1958); see also Jacobson v.
Commissioner, 96 T.C. 577, 590 (1991), affd. 963 F.2d 218 (8th
Cir. 1992).
In enacting subchapter K, Congress adopted an aggregate rule
for contributed property. In other words, Congress required
partners to divide the gain or loss, depreciation, or depletion
with respect to contributed property among the partners in a
manner which attributes precontribution appreciation or
depreciation in value to the contributor. H. Conf. Rept. 2543,
83d Cong., 2d Sess., at 58 (1954). In enacting this aggregate
rule, however, Congress did not envision contributions to a
partnership made solely for the purpose of subsequently
166(...continued)
Having satisfied the formal requirements of what
it sees as the applicable rules, SuCrest urges us to
understand its elaborate machinations as a legitimate
ploy to hold down taxes and directs us to the maxim
that a person is entitled to arrange his taxes so as to
pay only that which is due. But, of course, the
taxpayer is not permitted to avoid taxes which are due
and the invocation of the phrase tells us nothing about
what must ultimately be rendered unto the I.R.S. any
more than Socrates solved the thorny problems of
justice by defining it to require that we give every
person his due. [United States v. Ingredient Tech.
Corp., 698 F.2d 88, 94 (2d Cir. 1983).]
Page: Previous 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011