- 6 - subvert this principle by deflecting income away from its true earner to another entity through contractual arrangements, however drafted, are not recognized as dispositive for Federal income tax purposes. Id. at 114-115; Vercio v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1246, 1253 (1980). The Supreme Court has referred to this assignment of income rule as “the first principle of income taxation”, Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733, 739 (1949), and “a cornerstone of our graduated income tax system”, United States v. Basye, 410 U.S. 441, 450 (1973). Petitioner does not dispute that the amount paid to Salt Creek Services for work performed must be taxed to the earner of the income. Instead, petitioner asserts that for tax purposes, Salt Creek Services should be considered to have earned the income (i.e., was the “true earner” of the income) for the years at issue because of the assignment. However, petitioner, not Salt Creek Services, was entitled to receive the commissions from Bankers United. The agency agreement was between petitioner and Bankers United. Moreover, the record does not contain any evidence showing an agreement existed between petitioner and Salt Creek Services. Lastly, outside of his assertions, petitioner produced no evidence showing Salt Creek Services actually existed. Accordingly, the Court concludes the assignment to Salt Creek Services was ineffectual to shift the tax burden away fromPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011