Estate of Burton W. Kanter, Deceased, Joshua S. Kanter, Executor, and Naomi R. Kanter, et al. - Page 292

                                                -356-                                                   
                  2.  Whether Kanter Improperly Assigned Income to THC Through                          
                  CMS Investors                                                                         
                  Respondent does not dispute that Delta and Alpha lent                                 
            millions of dollars to Shelburne and Century, respectively.  In                             
            Durkin v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1329 (1986), this Court concluded                           
            the Delta loan constituted a valid debt for tax purposes.                                   
            Respondent’s theory, nevertheless, is that THC’s distributive                               
            share of the bonus payments from Shelburne and Century represents                           
            Kanter’s income because Kanter (and other members of his law                                
            firm) were the true investors and the true lenders, and THC (as a                           
            partner in CMS Investors) was, in effect, no more than an alter                             
            ego for Kanter.  On the record presented, we disagree.                                      
                  In Durkin v. Commissioner, supra at 1399-1401, the Court                              
            held that the Shelburne bonus payment did not constitute interest                           
            and, therefore, it was not deductible.  The Court also suggested                            
            the Shelburne bonus payment was simply a distribution of profits                            
            from Shelburne to CMS Investors disguised as an interest payment.                           
            Id. at 1400.  From these points, respondent infers that the loans                           
            giving rise to the bonus payments were, in effect, loans made by                            
            Kanter and his law partners.  Respondent goes well beyond the                               
            holding of Durkin.  The Court in Durkin made no such finding, and                           
            respondent has misinterpreted the case.                                                     
                  We reject the argument that Kanter attempted to assign to                             
            THC the income from the bonus payments.  Although we have                                   
            concluded Kanter used THC as a conduit to receive his share of                              





Page:  Previous  346  347  348  349  350  351  352  353  354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  362  363  364  365  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011