1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220">*220 Decision will be entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COHEN, CHIEF JUDGE: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal individual income tax for 1994 in 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220">*222 the amount of $37,364 and an accuracy-related penalty under
Unless indicated otherwise, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.
After concessions by petitioner, the issues for decision are (1) whether petitioner is liable for taxes on $113,081 in insurance renewal commissions that petitioner assigned to American Keystone Group, Inc., and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the substantial understatement penalty under
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference. Petitioner resided in Plano, Texas, at the time this petition was filed.
Petitioner was an independent contractor at Pennsylvania Life Insurance Co. (Penn Life) from June 1974 through January 1994. Petitioner earned commissions on the insurance policies he sold on behalf of Penn Life. Petitioner and Penn Life contractually agreed that petitioner would receive commissions on certain policies petitioner personally sold while an independent contractor at Penn Life, when and if those policies renewed.
Petitioner1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220">*223 and Penn Life also contractually agreed that, after petitioner's employment with Penn Life was terminated, petitioner would continue to participate in the profits of Penn Life pursuant to a schedule to which petitioner and Penn Life agreed. During 1994, pursuant to the contractual agreements between petitioner and Penn Life, petitioner earned commissions in the amount of $225,319.
Petitioner founded American Keystone Group, Inc. (AKG), on May 23, 1994. During 1994, petitioner transferred AKG to his brothers, Michael Zaal and Chris Zaal. On or about August 1, 1994, petitioner assigned his rights under the contract with Penn Life to AKG. In total, during 1994, petitioner assigned $113,081 of Penn Life commissions to AKG.
On his 1994 Federal income tax return, petitioner included $113,835 of the $225,319 in Penn Life commissions in his gross income. Petitioner also earned commissions of $1,582 from Time Insurance Co., and he received $6,878 from the sale of stocks/bonds and dividend income of $32 both from Smith Barney, Inc.
OPINION
RENEWAL COMMISSIONS
Petitioner contends that $113,081 in renewal commissions paid by Penn Life in 1994 is not taxable1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220">*224 to him because he sold them to AKG, which actually received the payments. Respondent contends that the payment of the commissions to AKG instead of to petitioner was an anticipatory assignment of income, and petitioner is liable for taxes on the commissions.
We agree with respondent. The applicable legal principles are well established, although stated in various ways:
An entity earning the income -- whether a partnership or an individual taxpayer -- cannot avoid taxation by entering into a contractual arrangement whereby that income is diverted to some other person or entity. Such arrangements, known to the tax law as "anticipatory assignments of income, "have frequently been held ineffective as means of avoiding tax liability. * * *
"If one, entitled to receive at a future date * * * compensation for services, makes a grant of it by anticipatory assignment, he realizes taxable income as if he had * * * received the salary and1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220">*225 then paid it over."
An individual cannot escape tax on income to which he is entitled by "turning his back" upon that income. If he has received the income or had a right to receive the income, he is taxable thereon. See
Petitioner argues that he sold property to AKG and is no longer liable for tax on the income from that property. State law creates legal interests, but Federal law determines when and how they are taxed.
In order to support his argument, petitioner relies on the dissent in
We hold that the $113,081 in renewal commissions is taxable to petitioner.
SUBSTANTIAL UNDERSTATEMENT PENALTY
An "understatement" is the amount by which the tax required to be shown on the return for the taxable year exceeds the tax that is actually shown on the return.
Petitioner may avoid liability for the accuracy-related penalty in either of two ways. First, if there is or was substantial authority for petitioner's tax treatment of any portion of the understatement, that portion would be excluded from the penalty computation.
To determine whether the treatment is supported by substantial authority, the weight of the authorities in support of petitioner's position must be substantial in relation to the weight of the authorities supporting contrary positions.
Second, petitioner's liability could be reduced if petitioner had adequately disclosed the relevant facts on his tax return and there was a reasonable basis for the treatment of the item by petitioner.
We hold that petitioner is liable for the penalty under
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for respondent.