Power v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The assignment of future income by the petitioner herein to her husband under the facts of this case does not divest her of the liability for payment of the tax thereon.
1Opinion of the Court
*431OPINION.
MokRis:
The petitioner alleges and contends that that portion of the income here in controversy which would have been received by her from the estate of Abigail I. Thompson had it not been previously assigned by her to her husband, is not taxable to her.
The rule is well established that notwithstanding the document of grant or assignment itself may be perfectly valid and enforceable between the parties thereto, the liability for income tax upon future income or profits which will or may accrue to the assignor by reason of the ownership of or an interest in property can not be avoided…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lucas v. EarlSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Rensselaer & S. R. v. IrwinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
- Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1918
- Blalock v. Georgia Ry. & Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1917
- Anderson v. Morris & E. R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Primm v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Drake v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- McDonald v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Simms Petroleum Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Crawford v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.