DocketNumber: Docket No. 19348-86.
Citation Numbers: 56 T.C.M. 914, 1988 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 608, 1988 T.C. Memo. 579
Filed Date: 12/27/1988
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
GOFFE,
Additions to Tax | |||
Deficiency | Sec. 6653(a)(1) 1 | Sec. 6653(a)(2) | Sec. 6661 2 |
$ 20,988.83 | $ 1,049.94 | * | $ 2,099.88 |
The issues for our decision are (1) whether certain "trusts" 3 are recognizable for Federal income tax purposes and, if so, whether the income received by the "trusts" is taxable to petitioners under the grantor trust provisions of sections 671 through 677; (2) whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax under
*612 FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts of this case have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of facts and accompanying exhibits are incorporated by this reference.
Petitioners, Gary E. Tatum (hereinafter petitioner) and Patricia D. Tatum, resided in Jasper, Texas, at the time of the filing of the petition in this case.
During 1982, Gary E. Tatum was a self-employed optometrist. In 1981, after learning of the tax shelter programs promoted by Karl L. Dahlstrom and the American Law Association (ALA), petitioner purchased a membership in the ALA for $ 10,000 for which he received a pre-packaged set of trust forms. Subsequent to purchasing the membership, Karl L. Dahlstrom instructed petitioner to contact Lascelle Tillett (Tillett), of Belize City, Belize, in order to implement the ALA trust plan.
On January 24, 1981, in Belize City, petitioner, as "exchangor," and Tillett, a citizen of Belize, as "creator," executed three documents each entitled "Contract and Declaration of Trust" (the contract), in the names of East Texas Trust Company (Texas Trust), Good Times Holding Company (Good Times), and Eastex Optical Operating Company (Eastex). Tillett contributed no*613 property and exercised no control over the three respective trusts.
The three trusts were organized as Belize common law business trusts pursuant to the contract for each. Each contract was identical in all respects with the exception of ownership of trust units and respective trustees. The creator, Tillett, appointed a trustee for each trust and such trustee was then empowered to appoint a secondary trustee. The contract authorized the trustee to elect officers, employees, and agents, and resolutions of a trustee were evidence that such act was within the power of the trustee. Each trust was to continue for a period of 25 years unless the trustee determined a shorter or longer period.
Initial ownership of the respective trust units was established on January 24, 1981, as follows: Petitioner exchanged $ 100 for $ 1 and 100 trust units of Texas Trust; petitioner exchanged personal property for $ 1 and 100 trust units of Eastex and on January 30, 1981, petitioner sold 100 trust units of Eastex to Good Times for $ 50; and Texas Trust exchanged $ 50 for $ 1 and 100 trust units of Good Times. The minutes of Eastex evidence that the personal property transferred to Eastex by petitioner*614 consisted of equipment and supplies used by petitioner in the operation of his optometry practice.
On January 24, 1981, Tillett appointed petitioner as first trustee of Texas Trust and petitioner appointed his wife, Patricia D. Tatum, as successor trustee. Tillett then appointed Texas Trust as trustee of Eastex and Good Times. Petitioner, as trustee of Texas Trust, appointed himself to the office of president of Eastex and Good Times on January 30, 1981. As trustee of Texas Trust, petitioner had complete control over Texas Trust, Good Times, and Eastex.
The sole purpose for Texas Trust was to act as trustee of Good Times and Eastex. Petitioner had signatory authority on bank account number XXX 914, styled Eastex Optical Operating Co., from which petitioner paid for secretarial services, leasing of equipment, and purchasing of optical goods. Prior to establishing Eastex, petitioner personally employed the secretaries, owned the equipment, and purchased the optical goods directly from suppliers. Petitioners had signatory authority on bank account number XXX 138 styled Good Times Holding Co., into which money from Eastex was deposited and from which disbursements to petitioner*615 were made as gifts.
During 1982, Patricia D. Tatum and/or Gary E. Tatum had signatory authority over the following checking accounts at the First National Bank of Jasper, Texas.
Account No. | Signature Authority | Style of Account |
XXX 211 | Gary E. Tatum | Dr. Gary E. Tatum |
XXX 199 | Patricia D. Tatum and | Dr. or Mrs. Gary E. |
Gary E. Tatum | Tatum | |
XXX 138 | Patricia D. Tatum and | Good Times Holding |
Gary E. Tatum | Co. | |
XXX 914 | Gary E. Tatum | Eastex Optical |
Operating Co. | ||
430 835 | Patricia D. Tatum | Patricia D. Tatum |
During 1982, petitioner paid Eastex $ 13,500 pursuant to a lease agreement for equipment originally transferred to Eastex in exchange for $ 1 and 100 trust units. Payments made to Eastex for labor and materials purchased in 1982 totalled $ 36,850 and $ 100,192.63, respectively. On their 1982 Federal income tax return, petitioners claimed a deduction for "equipment lease" and calculated "cost of goods sold" for labor and materials in the above amounts. Deposits to bank account number XXX 914 during 1982 (less redeposits) totalled $ 154,687.35.
For 1982, a Form 1040NR for Eastex was prepared and signed by petitioner and filed with the Internal*616 Revenue Service. Schedule C, attached to the Form 1040NR, reflected the following items:
Gross Receipts | $ 154,687.25 | |
Less: Cost of Goods Sold | 102,818.94 | |
Total Income | 51,868.31 | |
Less Claimed Deductions: | ||
Depreciation | $ 4,125.37 | |
Dues/Publications | 250.00 | |
Office Supplies/ | ||
Postage | 650.35 | |
Taxes | 1,056.71 | |
Royalty | 41,000.00 | |
Total Deductions | ||
Claimed | 47,082.43 | |
Net Profit | $ 4,785.88 |
The amount claimed as a "royalty" deduction is represented by checks totalling $ 41,000 drawn on bank account number XXX 914 payable to cash and Good Times Holding Co. and negotiated by petitioners. These "royalty" payments were recorded as income in the cash receipts and disbursements journal for Good Times and were the sole source of income for Good Times for the taxable year 1982.
During 1982, the sole disbursements recorded in the cash receipts and disbursements journal for Good Times were loans, totalling $ 19,500 to petitioner and to Andrea Tatum (Andrea), petitioners' 16-year-old daughter. These loans occurred in the following manner: By letter dated as*617 of the date of the loan, addressed to Good Times, Andrea requested to borrow from Good Times a sum certain. During 1982, the dates and amounts requested by Andrea were: February 11, 1982, $ 3,500; March 5, 1982, $ 3,000; April 6, 1982, $3,500; May 5, 1982, $2,500; June 11, 1982, $ 2,000; and July 9, 1982, $2,000. Petitioner requested to borrow $3,000 on January 7, 1982. By letter, addressed to Andrea and signed by petitioner as president of Good Times, the requested loan was acknowledged and made (with the exception of the loan on February 11, 1982). Thereafter, Andrea executed a promissory note (note) in the amount of the requested loan and received the money from Good Times. The note was then transferred by Good Times to petitioner as a gift, and petitioner then demanded payment of the note from Andrea. Andrea would then pay petitioner the face amount of the loan. Andrea's actions with respect to each transaction were at the request and direction of petitioner. In each instance, this sequence of events took place on the same day. Each note provided that early demand would waive any accumulated interest; therefore, because the sequence of events to effectuate this process*618 took place on the same day, no interest was ever paid by Andrea. The funds received through this procedure were used by petitioner for various living expenses and none of it was reported as taxable income.
The source of the loans to Andrea were from bank account number XXX 138, and from a "little box" located at the desk of petitioner's secretary. The source of the money located in the "little box" was Eastex.
Of the $ 41,000 claimed by Eastex on Form 1040NR as a "royalty" deduction, a check for $ 14,500 drawn on bank account number XXX 914 payable to Good Times Holding Co. and dated October 25, 1982, is reflected as a $ 14,500 deposit on that same day to bank account number XXX 138. By a letter dated October 29, 1982, petitioner purportedly transferred First National Bank account number XXX 162 styled Good Times Holding Co. to Patricia D. Tatum as a gift, although that account was not opened until December 30, 1982, Patricia D. Tatum drew checks totalling $ 12,827 on bank account number XXX 138 for personal expenditures. Petitioners reported a tax liability of $ 8,030.85 on their 1982 joint Federal income tax return.
The Commissioner mailed a notice of deficiency to petitioners*619 for the taxable year 1982. Consistent with his determination that the trusts were nullities for Federal income tax purposes, the Commissioner treated the income and expenses recorded on the books and records of Eastex as income and expenses of petitioners. In his notice of deficiency, the Commissioner determined that petitioners realized unreported income of $ 154,687 based upon gross receipts from petitioner's optometry services in the amount of $ 384,127.97 less receipts of $ 229,440.97, reported on petitioners' joint Federal income tax return. The unreported gross receipts were determined from the following analysis of bank account number XXX 914 styled Eastex Optical Operating Co.:
First National Bank | ||
Eastex Optical Operating Co. | ||
Account #XX6914 | ||
Date of Deposit | Amount of Deposit | Source |
1/29/82 | $ 1,350.00 | Services |
2/26/82 | 13,225.50 | Services |
3/31/82 | 16,981.13 | Services |
4/30/82 | 3,121.72 | Services |
5/28/82 | 12,594.60 | Services |
6/30/82 | 12,785.00 | Services |
7/30/82 | 17,629.62 | Services |
8/31/82 | 19,607.08 | Services |
9/30/82 | - | - |
10/30/82 | 23,468.38 | Services |
11/30/82 | 4,700.00 | Services |
$ 29,224.32 Services | ||
12/31/82 | 36,224.32 | 7,000.00 Redeposit |
Total Deposits | $ 161,687.35 | |
Less: Redeposits | 7,000.00 | |
Rounding off | .35 | |
Taxable Amount | $ 154,687.00 |
*620 The Commissioner allowed $ 102,818.94 as cost of goods sold and the following deductions:
Depreciation | $ 4,125.37 |
Dues/Publication | 250.00 |
Office Supplies/Postage | 650.35 |
Taxes | 1,056.71 |
Total | $ 6,082.43 |
The only deduction claimed by Eastex on the Form 1040NR not allowed by the Commissioner was the "royalty" payment of $ 41,000, which was money ultimately distributed to petitioners as gifts.
As a result of increasing taxable income $ 45,786, the Commissioner allowed an investment tax credit of $ 453.05, rather than the $ 39.55 claimed on the return.
The Commissioner also determined petitioners were liable for additions to tax pursuant to
OPINION
The first issue for our decision is whether Texas Trust, Good Times, and Eastex are recognizable for Federal income tax purposes. The contention that these*621 trusts are "shams" is a recurring theme that we have applied and upheld in prior cases involving Dahlstrom trusts.
We pointed out in prior opinions some of the principles which courts have consistently applied to cases similar to the instant case. These principles are so well established that they need not be repeated because we enunciated them in detail in
The Commissioner contends that the trusts which petitioners caused to be created should not be regarded as legal entities for Federal income tax purposes. He contends that they are shams.
Prior to the taxable year 1982, the year before the Court, petitioner conducted his optometry business as a sole proprietorship. Petitioner organized business trusts under the laws of Belize using a pre-packaged set of forms purchased from ALA through which he conducted the identical business formerly conducted as a proprietorship. Petitioners argue that the transactions between the trusts and themselves should be recognized for tax purposes because this Court was reversed in
To begin with,
Petitioners have mischaracterized the reversal of
In our previous decisions regarding the use of similar Dahlstrom trusts, we found the trusts not recognizable for Federal income tax purposes because the creation and use of the trusts did not alter the taxpayers' economic relationship to the properties transferred to the trusts.
The Dahlstrom trust documents, terms, conditions, organization, and operation in
Under these circumstances, we decline to accord these Dahlstrom trusts any greater weight than we have done in the past. Petitioners' Dahlstrom trust scheme is devoid of economic substance. It is clear that petitioners' intent in establishing these trusts was solely to obtain tax benefits. Because we find that the trusts are to be treated as nullities for Federal income tax purposes, it is not necessary to address respondent's argument concerning the grantor trust rules.
Petitioners argue that the facts of
It is clear that no true liability ever existed with respect to the notes signed by Andrea. As in
Petitioners further argue that
We must next consider petitioners' jurisdictional argument. Petitioners contend that even though the Tax Court may have subject matter jurisdiction over Good Times, it does not have "territorial" jurisdiction because Good Times is a nonresident alien that does not engage in a trade or business in the United States. Petitioners cite
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, having only such jurisdiction as provided by statute.
In the present factual situation, we do not have jurisdiction to decide the Federal income tax liability of Good Times, as the trust is not a party properly before us. However, to the extent relevant and necessary to correctly redetermine the amount of petitioners' deficiency, we may consider facts and issues relating to Good Times. "The fact that [the trusts] purported to be foreign business trusts does not give them vitality,"
Consistent with our holding that the*630 creation of Texas Trust, Eastex, and Good Times did not alter any cognizable economic relationship, we will look through the form and, instead, apply the tax law to the substance of the transactions. In substance, petitioners are the owners of the income and expenses recorded on the books and records of Eastex for 1982, and they are taxable on these amounts accordingly.
The Commissioner determined that petitioners were liable for additions to tax for taxable year 1982 under
The record before us contains no evidence that petitioners exercised the care taken by a reasonable and ordinarily prudent investor. Based upon the large amounts of income from petitioner's optometry practice that was being sheltered from taxation, a reasonable and prudent investor would have made inquiries into the validity of the Dahlstrom trust scheme. We sustain respondent's additions to tax under
(I) a partnership or other entity,
(II) any investment plan or arrangement, or
(III) any other*633 plan or arrangement,
if the principal purpose of such partnership, entity, plan, or arrangement is the avoidance or evasion of Federal income tax.
Based upon the record before us, it is clear that the principal purpose of the Dahlstrom trust scheme is the avoidance of Federal income tax. Our holding that the Dahlstrom trust scheme is a tax shelter, within the meaning of
With respect to understatements attributable to a tax shelter item,
Petitioners' reliance on the substantial authority standard is based upon distinguishing the present factual situation from
is determined by the same analysis that a court would be expected to follow in evaluating the tax treatment of the item. Thus, the weight of authorities depends on their persuasiveness*635 and relevance as well as their source. For example, a case or revenue ruling having some facts in common with the tax treatment at issue would not be considered particularly relevant if the authority is materially distinguishable on its facts, or is otherwise inapplicable to the tax treatment at issue.
Petitioners have failed in their burden of proving substantial authority for their position. The Dahlstrom trust scheme has been consistently invalidated by this Court and petitioners' arguments to distinguish these previous decisions from the instant case are without merit. Petitioners' theory regarding what counsel should have done in prior cases is not relevant. All relevant precedent weighs against petitioners' position, and the relative merits of those precedents demonstrate that the distinguishing characteristics relied upon were not of sufficient force to compel the treatment claimed. 8
In addition, petitioners have not demonstrated that they "reasonably believed" that the trust scheme was supported by the authorities. *636
(d)
(1) The taxpayer analyzes the pertinent facts and authorities in the manner described in
(2) The taxpayer in good faith relies on the opinion of a professional tax advisor, if the opinion is based on the tax advisor's analysis of the pertinent facts and authorities in the manner described in
Petitioners have not argued that reliance was placed upon the opinion of a professional tax advisor.
*638
Respondent has requested that damages be awarded under
Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay, that the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, * * * damages in an amount not in excess of $ 5,000 shall be awarded to the United States by the Tax Court in its decision. Damages so awarded shall be assessed at the same time as the deficiency and shall be paid upon notice and demand from the Secretary and shall be collected as a part of the tax.
Respondent informed petitioners by letter dated June 14, 1987, and by amendment to Answer, of the provisions of
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year 1982. ↩
2. By an amendment to his Answer the Commissioner increased the addition to tax under
*. The amount will be computed on the full deficiency. ↩
3. The terms "trust," "foreign," "purchase," "sale," "note," "gift," "borrow," "loan," "royalty payment," "management service," "contract," and all related derivations are used herein merely for convenience in describing the form of purported transactions, and without intending any inference as to the tax characterization or consequences of any aspect of the transaction.↩
4.
5. Petitioners contend that the real question in
6.
7.
8.
9. In 1982,
10. Petitioners' persistence may stem from the encouragement of Karl L. Dahlstrom, who assisted petitioners at trial. ↩
11. In
Rice's Toyota World, Inc. (Formerly Rice Auto Sales, Inc.) ... , 752 F.2d 89 ( 1985 )
Olaf C. Akland, and Bertha A. Akland v. Commissioner of ... , 767 F.2d 618 ( 1985 )
Lucas v. Earl , 50 S. Ct. 241 ( 1930 )
George v. Zmuda and Walburga Zmuda v. Commissioner of ... , 731 F.2d 1417 ( 1984 )
United States v. Karl L. Dahlstrom, R. Bruce Ripley, Hiram ... , 713 F.2d 1423 ( 1983 )
Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. , 72 S. Ct. 413 ( 1952 )
Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall , 104 S. Ct. 1868 ( 1984 )