Larry J. and Anita L. Lundgren - Page 7

                                        - 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