George T. Horvat and Carol R. Horvat, and James J. Minesal and Joyce Minesal v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Seventh Circuit

George T. Horvat and Carol R. Horvat, and James J. Minesal and Joyce Minesal v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

671 F.2d 990

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 8, 1982

Docket77-1874

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 671 F.2d 990 (George T. Horvat and Carol R. Horvat, and James J. Minesal and Joyce Minesal v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George T. Horvat and Carol R. Horvat, and James J. Minesal and Joyce Minesal v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 671 F.2d 990 (7th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George and Carol Horvat and James and Joyce Minesal appeal from the decision of the United States Tax Court upholding certain income tax deficiencies determined by the Commissioner. Briefly, the Horvats and Minesals created trusts to which they assigned “the exclusive use of my lifetime services and all resultant earned remuneration.” The Tax Court held that this conveyance was merely an anticipatory assignment of income and as such, under Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 50 S.Ct. 241, 74 L.Ed. 731 (1930), was income to them and should have been so reported. In addition, this court only recently held, in a case where payments were made by an employer indirectly to the educational institution attended by taxpayers’ children, that one who earns income may not avoid taxation through anticipatory arrangements. Armantrout v. Commissioner, 570 F.2d 210 (7th Cir. 1978).

The well-reasoned memorandum opinion of the Tax Court, [1977] 36 Tax Ct.Mem. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 34,352(M), sets forth the facts and the applicable law, and, as well, responds to the arguments now made again to this court. In view of this, the judgment of *991 the Tax Court is affirmed and the opinion of that court is adopted by this court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

George and Carol Horvat and James and Joyce Minesal appeal from the decision of the United States Tax Court upholding certain income tax deficiencies determined by the Commissioner. Briefly, the Horvats and Minesals created trusts to which they assigned “the exclusive use of my lifetime services and all resultant earned remuneration.” The Tax Court held that this conveyance was merely an anticipatory assignment of income and as such, under Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 50 S.Ct. 241, 74 L.Ed. 731 (1930), was income to them and should have been so reported. In addition, this court only recently held, in a case where payments were made by an employer indirectly to the educational institution attended by taxpayers’ children, that one who earns income may not avoid taxation through anticipatory arrangements. Armantrout v. Commissioner, 570 F.2d 210 (7th Cir. 1978).

The well-reasoned memorandum opinion of the Tax Court, [1977] 36 Tax Ct.Mem. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 34,352(M), sets forth the facts and the applicable law, and, as well, responds to the arguments now made again to this court. In view of this, the judgment of *991 the Tax Court is affirmed and the opinion of that court is adopted by this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 F.2d 990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-t-horvat-and-carol-r-horvat-and-james-j-minesal-and-joyce-ca7-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack