Roy C. Acuff, and Wife, Mildred Acuff v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Boy C. ACUFF, and Wife, Mildred Acuff, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This tax review involves a trust agreement set up by Roy C. Acuff, a “country music” entertainer and one-time candidate for Governor of Tennessee, and his wife Mildred Acuff, creating a trust for the benefit of their minor son. The agreement provided that the Trustee, Roy C. Acuff, should enter into a partnership with himself, individually, and his wife, for the management and operation of his resort property known as “Dunbar Cave,” located near Clarksville, Tennessee, and of his wife’s one-half interest in a profitable music publishing partnership known as “Acuff-Rose Publications.”
The issues before us are whether Mr. and Mrs. Acuff are taxable on the income of the trust created for the benefit of their minor son; and whether the partnership entered into by them is valid for income tax purposes.
The Tax Court, in a carefully prepared opinion, held it to be clear that the trust and the partnership have no real substance, and that the grantors continued to hold, manage and control the properties as if the trust and partnership agreements had not been written. The court found as an ultimate fact that the purported trust and partnership established by the Acuffs, Roy and Mildred, lacked substance and that they are paper entities only; and that the husband and wife remained the true owners of the property from which the income reported by the partnership was derived. Consequently, the husband and wife were held to be taxable on the entire income reported by the partnership.
We think the decision of the Tax Court is in consonance with the principles of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733 , 69 S.Ct. 1210 , 93 L.Ed. 1659 ; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Tower, 327 U.S. 280 , 66 S.Ct. 532 , 90 L.Ed. 670 ; Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331 , 60 S.Ct. 554 , 84 L.Ed. 788 ; and Paster v. Commissioner, 245 F.2d 381 (C.A.8; 1957); and other cases cited in the opinion of the Tax Court.
The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.