- 7 -
Mr. Chisum was a part-time consultant, who consulted in
business planning, business management, estate planning, and
estate management, including the creation of trust documents such
as the Lucky Kirt Trust. Mr. Chisum held a high school degree
and was specially trained in nuclear engineering while in the
Navy. He did not learn to read until the age of 40 and learned
about tax planning through his accountant, Richard Gilmore and
seminar-type courses, rather than any formalized tax education.
Mr. Chisum did not hold any professional licenses, nor did he
seek legal advice in creating these trusts to determine the
trusts’ treatment by the Internal Revenue Service.
OPINION
I. Contentions of the Parties
On the premises of tax protester arguments, petitioners
contend that they were not required and should not be required to
pay income taxes.5 Specifically, petitioners argue that they did
not earn any income from, receive any distributions from, and
were not involved with Lucky Kirt Trust a.k.a. Lucky Kirt II
Trust. Petitioners maintain that they are merely tenant farmers
5 Petitioners at various junctures have alluded to the
Sixteenth Amendment. As the Court noted at trial, our tax
system, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Tax Court have been
firmly established as constitutional. See Crain v. Commissioner,
737 F.2d 1417, 1417-1418 (5th Cir. 1984); Ginter v. Southern, 611
F.2d 1226, 1229 (8th Cir. 1979). Specifically, the Court notes
that the “Federal income tax laws are constitutional. * * * The
whole purpose of the 16th Amendment was to relieve all income
taxes when imposed from apportionment and from a consideration of
the source whence the income was derived.” Abrams v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 406-407 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011