exceptions to assignment of income doctrine

What is “Assignment of Income” Under the Tax Law?

Gross income is taxed to the individual who earns it or to owner of property that generates the income. Under the so-called “assignment of income doctrine,” a taxpayer may not avoid tax by assigning the right to income to another.

Specifically, the assignment of income doctrine holds that a taxpayer who earns income from services that the taxpayer performs or property that the taxpayer owns generally cannot avoid liability for tax on that income by assigning it to another person or entity. The doctrine is frequently applied to assignments to creditors, controlled entities, family trusts and charities.

A taxpayer cannot, for tax purposes, assign income that has already accrued from property the taxpayer owns. This aspect of the assignment of income doctrine is often applied to interest, dividends, rents, royalties, and trust income. And, under the same rationale, an assignment of an interest in a lottery ticket is effective only if it occurs before the ticket is ascertained to be a winning ticket.

However, a taxpayer can shift liability for capital gains on property not yet sold by making a bona fide gift of the underlying property. In that case, the donee of a gift of securities takes the “carryover” basis of the donor.  

For example, shares now valued at $50 gifted to a donee in which the donor has a tax basis of $10, would yield a taxable gain to the donee of its eventual sale price less the $10 carryover basis. The donor escapes income tax on any of the appreciation.

For guidance on this issue, please contact our professionals at 315.242.1120 or [email protected] .

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Privacy overview.

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; others help us improve the user experience. By using the site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our  privacy policy  to learn more.

Recognizing when the IRS can reallocate income

• C Corporation Income Taxation
• IRS Practice & Procedure

Transactions between related parties come under close scrutiny by the IRS because they are not always conducted at arm's length. If the amounts involved in the transaction do not represent fair market values, the IRS can change the characteristics of the transaction to reflect its actual nature.

The IRS may attempt to reallocate income between a closely held corporation and its shareholders based on several sets of rules, including the following:

• Assignment-of-income rules that have been developed through the courts;
• The allocation-of-income theory of Sec. 482; and
• The rules for allocation of income between a personal service corporation and its employee-owners of Sec. 269A.

Income reallocation under the assignment - of - income doctrine is dependent on determining who earns or controls the income. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made the classic statement of the assignment - of - income doctrine when he stated that the Supreme Court would not recognize for income tax purposes an "arrangement by which the fruits are attributed to a different tree from that on which they grew" ( Lucas v. Earl , 281 U.S. 111, 115 (1930)).

Reallocation under Sec. 482 is used to prevent tax evasion or to more clearly reflect income when two or more entities are controlled by the same interests. Note the use of the word "or" in the preceding sentence. The Code empowers the IRS to allocate income even if tax evasion is not present if the allocation will more clearly reflect the income of the controlled interests. The intent of these provisions is to place the controlled entity in the same position as if it were not controlled so that the income of the controlled entity is clearly reflected (Regs. Sec. 1. 482 - 1 (a)) .

Example 1. Performing services for another group member:   Corporations P and S are members of the same controlled group. S asks P to have its financial staff perform an analysis to determine S' s borrowing needs. P does not charge S for this service. Under Sec. 482, the IRS could adjust each corporation's taxable income to reflect an arm's - length charge by P for the services it provided to S .

Under Sec. 269A(a), the IRS has the authority to allocate income, deductions, credits, exclusions, and other items between a personal service corporation (PSC) and its employee - owners if:

• The PSC performs substantially all of its services for or on behalf of another corporation, partnership, or other entity; and
• The PSC was formed or used for the principal purpose of avoiding or evading federal income tax by reducing the income or securing the benefit of any expense, deduction, credit, exclusion, or other item for any employee-owner that would not otherwise be available.

A PSC will not be considered to have been formed or availed of for the principal purpose of avoiding or evading federal income taxes if a safe harbor is met. The safe harbor applies if the employee - owner's federal income tax liability is not reduced by more than the lesser of (1) $2,500 or (2) 10% of the federal income tax liability of the employee - owner that would have resulted if the employee - owner personally performed the services (Prop. Regs. Sec. 1. 269A - 1 (c)).

For purposes of this rule, a PSC is a corporation, the principal activity of which is the performance of personal services when those services are substantially performed by employee - owners (Sec. 269A(b)(1)). An employee - owner is any employee who owns on any day during the tax year more than 10% of the PSC's outstanding stock. As with many related - party provisions, the Sec. 318 stock attribution rules (with modifications) apply in determining stock ownership (Sec. 269A(b)(2)).

Example 2. Reallocation of income: H forms M Corp., which is a PSC. A few months later, he transfers shares of stock of an unrelated corporation to M . The following year, M receives dividends from the unrelated corporation and claims the Sec. 243(a) 50% dividend exclusion. The IRS may reallocate the dividend income from M to H if the principal purpose of the transfer of the unrelated stock to M was to use the 50% dividend exclusion under Sec. 243. However, the amounts to reallocate to H must exceed the safe - harbor amounts.

These rules usually apply when an individual performs personal services for an employer that does not offer tax - advantaged employee benefits (such as a qualified retirement plan and other employee fringe benefits). In those situations, the individual may set up a 100%- owned C corporation that contracts with the employer. The employer then pays the corporation. The individual functions as the employee of the corporation, and the corporation sets up tax - advantaged fringe benefit programs. The individual generally is able to "zero out" the income of the corporation with payments for salary and fringe benefits.

Despite the significant authority that Sec. 269A grants to the IRS, there is little evidence of the IRS or the courts using this statute. In a 1987 private letter ruling, the IRS held that a one - owner , one - employee medical corporation did not violate the statute, even though it retained only nominal amounts of taxable income, and the corporate structure allowed the individual to achieve a significant pension plan deduction. These facts were not sufficient to establish a principal purpose of tax avoidance (IRS Letter Ruling 8737001). In Sargent , 929 F.2d 1252 (8th Cir. 1991), the Eighth Circuit indicated a lack of interest in applying Sec. 269A because, in that case, the court felt the PSC had been set up for other legitimate reasons.    

This case study has been adapted from PPC's Tax Planning Guide — Closely Held Corporations , 31st Edition (March 2018), by Albert L. Grasso, R. Barry Johnson, and Lewis A. Siegel. Published by Thomson Reuters/Tax & Accounting, Carrollton, Texas, 2018 (800-431-9025; tax.thomsonreuters.com ).

A trust is not always a trust for federal income tax purposes

Advances between affiliated entities: an uphill but winnable battle for loan characterization, foreign partnership reporting requirements, sec. 163(j) planning considerations, bitcoin etfs: the known and unknown.

TAX PRACTICE MANAGEMENT

To get through the rigors of tax season, CPAs depend on their tax preparation software. Here's how they rate the leading professional products.

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS & PENSIONS

The 2022 act affected a wide array of retirement fund and pension plan provisions. This article highlights many of the most noteworthy ones, along with relevant IRS guidance and congressional plans for technical corrections.

Battling Uphill Against the Assignment of Income Doctrine: Ryder

Benjamin Alarie

Kathrin Gardhouse

Benjamin Alarie is the Osler Chair in Business Law at the University of Toronto and the CEO of Blue J Legal Inc. Kathrin Gardhouse is a legal research associate at Blue J Legal .

In this article, Alarie and Gardhouse examine the Tax Court ’s recent decision in Ryder and use machine-learning models to evaluate the strength of the legal factors that determine the outcome of assignment of income cases.

Copyright 2021 Benjamin Alarie and Kathrin Gardhouse . All rights reserved.

I. Introduction

Researching federal income tax issues demands distilling the law from the code, regulations, revenue rulings, administrative guidance, and sometimes hundreds of tax cases that may all be relevant to a particular situation. When a judicial doctrine has been developed over many decades and applied in many different types of cases, the case-based part of this research can be particularly time consuming. Despite an attorney’s best efforts, uncertainty often remains regarding how courts will decide a new set of facts, as previously decided cases are often distinguished and the exercise of judicial discretion can at times lead to surprises. To minimize surprises as well as the time and effort involved in generating tax advice, Blue J ’s machine-learning modules allow tax practitioners to assess the likely outcome of a case if it were to go to court based on the analysis of data from previous decisions using machine learning. Blue J also identifies cases with similar facts, permitting more efficient research.

In previous installments of Blue J Predicts, we examined the strengths and weaknesses of ongoing or recently decided appellate cases, yielding machine-learning-generated insights about the law and predicting the outcomes of cases. In this month’s column, we look at a Tax Court case that our predictor suggests was correctly decided (with more than 95 percent confidence). The Ryder case 1 has received significant attention from the tax community. It involved tax avoidance schemes marketed by the law firm Ernest S. Ryder & Associates Inc. (R&A) that produced more than $31 million in revenue between 2003 and 2011 and for which the firm reported zero taxable income. The IRS unmasked more than 1,000 corporate entities that R&A’s owner, Ernest S. Ryder , had created and into which he funneled the money. By exposing the functions that these entities performed, the IRS played the most difficult role in the case. Yet, there are deeper lessons that can be drawn from the litigation by subjecting it to analysis using machine learning.

In this installment of Blue J Predicts, we shine an algorithmic spotlight on the legal factors that determine the outcomes of assignment of income cases such as Ryder . For Ryder , the time for filing an appeal has elapsed and the matter is settled. Thus, we use it to examine the various factors that courts look to in this area and to show the effect those factors have in assignment of income cases. Equipped with our machine-learning module, we are able to highlight the fine line between legitimate tax planning and illegitimate tax avoidance in the context of the assignment of income doctrine.

II. Background

In its most basic iteration, the assignment of income doctrine stands for the proposition that income is taxed to the individual who earns it, even if the right to that income is assigned to someone else. 2 Courts have held that the income earner is responsible for the income tax in the overwhelming majority of cases, including Ryder . It is only in a small number of cases that courts have been willing to accept the legitimacy of an assignment and have held that the assignee is liable for the earned income. Indeed, Blue J ’s “Assigned Income From Services” predictor, which draws on a total of 242 cases and IRS rulings, includes only 10 decisions in which the assignee has been found to be liable to pay tax on the income at issue.

The wide applicability of the assignment of income doctrine was demonstrated in Ryder , in which the court applied the doctrine to several different transactions that occurred between 1996 and 2011. Ryder founded his professional law corporation R&A in 1996 and used his accounting background, law degree, and graduate degree in taxation for the benefit of his clients. R&A designed, marketed, sold, and administered six aggressive tax-saving products that promised clients the ability to “defer a much greater portion of their income than they ever dreamed possible, and, as a result, substantially reduce their tax liability.” 3 In 2003 the IRS caught on to Ryder ’s activities when his application to have 800 employee stock option plans qualified at the same time was flagged for review. A decade of investigations and audits of Ryder and his law firm spanning from 2002 to 2011 followed.

What is interesting in this case is that Ryder , through his law firm R&A, directly contracted with his clients for only three of the six tax-saving products that his firm designed, marketed, and sold (the stand-alone products). The fees collected by R&A from two of the stand-alone products were then assigned to two other entities through two quite distinct mechanisms. For the other three tax-saving products, the clients contracted — at least on paper — with other entities that Ryder created (the group-tax products). Yet, the court treated the income from all six tax-saving products identically. The differences between the six types of transactions did not affect the outcome of the case — namely, that it is R&A’s income in all six instances. Blue J ’s predictor can explain why: The factors that our predictor highlights as relevant for answering the question whether the assignment of income doctrine applies have less to do with the particular strategy that the income earner conjures up for making it look like the income belongs to someone else, and more to do with different ways of pinpointing who actually controls the products, services, and funds. In Ryder , the choices ultimately come down to whether that is R&A or the other entity.

We will begin the analysis of the case by taking a closer look at two of the six tax-saving products, paying particular attention to the flow of income from R&A’s clients to R&A and Ryder ’s assignment of income to the other entities. We have selected one of the tax-saving products in which Ryder drew up an explicit assignment agreement, and another one in which he tried to make it look like the income was directly earned by another entity he had set up. Regardless of the structures and means employed, the court, based on the IRS ’s evidence, traced this income to R&A and applied the assignment of income doctrine to treat it as R&A’s income.

This article will not cover in detail the parts of the decision in which the court reconstructs the many transactions Ryder and his wife engaged in to purchase various ranches using the income that had found its way to R& A. As the court puts it, the complexity of the revenues and flow of funds is “baroque” when R&A is concerned, and when it comes to the ranches, it becomes “ rococo .” 4 We will also not cover the fraud and penalty determinations that the court made in this case.

III. The Tax Avoidance Schemes

We will analyze two of the six schemes discussed in the case. The first is the staffing product, and the second is the American Specialty Insurance Group Ltd. (ASIG) product. Each serves as an example of different mechanisms Ryder employed to divert income tax liability away from R&A. In the case of the staffing product, Ryder assigned income explicitly to another entity. The ASIG product involved setting up another entity that Ryder argued earned the income directly itself.

A. The Staffing Product

R&A offered a product to its clients in the course of which the client could lease its services to a staffing corporation, which would in turn lease the client’s services back to the client’s operating business. The intended tax benefit lay “with the difference between the lease payment and the wages received becoming a form of compensation that was supposedly immune from current taxation.” 5 At first, the fees from the staffing product were invoiced by and paid to R&A. When the IRS started its investigation, Ryder drew up an “Agreement of Assignment and Assumption” with the intent to assign all the clients and the income from the staffing product to ESOP Legal Consultants Inc. ( ELC ). Despite the contractual terms limiting the agreement to the 2004-2006 tax years, Ryder used ELC ’s bank account until 2011 to receive fees paid by the various S corporations he had set up for his clients to make the staffing product work. R&A would then move the money from this bank account into Ryder ’s pocket in one way or another. ELC had no office space, and the only evidence of employees was six names on the letterhead of ELC indicating their positions. When testifying in front of the court, two of these employees failed to mention that they were employed by ELC , and one of them was unable to describe the work ELC was allegedly performing. Hence, the court concluded that ELC did not have any true employees of its own and did not conduct any business. Instead, it was R&A’s employees that provided any required services to the clients. 6

B. The ASIG Product

R&A sold “disability and professional liability income insurance” policies to its clients using ASIG, a Turks and Caicos corporation that was a captive insurer owned by Capital Mexicana . Ryder had created these two companies during his previous job with the help of the Turks and Caicos accounting firm Morris Cottingham Ltd. The policies Ryder sold to his clients required them to pay premiums to ASIG as consideration for the insurance. The premiums were physically mailed to R& A. Also , the clients were required to pay a 2 percent annual fee, which was deposited into ASIG’s bank account. In return, the clients received 98 percent of the policy’s cash value in the event that they became disabled, separated from employment, turned 60, or terminated the policy. 7

R&A’s involvement in these deals, aside from setting up ASIG, was to find the clients who bought the policies, assign them a policy number, draft a policy, and open a bank account for the client, as well as provide legal services for the deal as needed. It was R&A that billed the client and that ensured, with Morris Cottingham ’s help, that the fees were paid. R&A employees would record the ASIG policy fee paid by the clients, noting at times that “pymt bypassed [R&A’s] books.” 8 Quite an effort went into disguising R&A’s involvement.

First, there was no mention of R&A on the policy itself. Second, ASIG’s office was located at Morris Cottingham’s Turks and Caicos corporate services. Ryder also set up a post office box for ASIG in Las Vegas. Any mail sent to it was forwarded to Ryder . Third, to collect the fees, R&A would send a letter to Morris Cottingham for signature, receive the signed letter back, and then fax it to the financial institution where ASIG had two accounts. One of these was nominally in ASIG’s name but really for the client’s benefit, and the other account was in Ryder ’s name. The financial institution would then move the amount owed in fees from the former to the latter account. Whenever a client filed for a benefit under the policy, the client would prepare a claim package and pay a termination fee that also went into the ASIG account held in Ryder ’s name. The exchanges between the clients and ASIG indicate that these fees were to reimburse ASIG for its costs and services, as well as to allow it to derive a profit therefrom. But the court found that ASIG itself did nothing. Even the invoices sent to clients detailing these fee payments that were on ASIG letterhead were in fact prepared by R&A. In addition to the annual fees and the termination fee, clients paid legal fees on a biannual basis for services Ryder provided. These legal fees, too, were paid into the ASIG account in Ryder ’s name. 9

IV. Assignment of Income Doctrine

The assignment of income doctrine attributes income tax to the individual who earns the income, even if the right to that income is assigned to another entity. The policy rationale underlying the doctrine is to prevent high-income taxpayers from shifting their taxable income to others. 10 The doctrine is judicial and was first developed in 1930 by the Supreme Court in Lucas , a decision that involved contractual assignment of personal services income between a husband and wife. 11 The doctrine expanded significantly over the next 20 years and beyond, and it has been applied in many different types of cases involving gratuitous transfers of income or property. 12 The staffing product, as of January 2004, involved an anticipatory assignment of income to which the assignment of services income doctrine had been held to apply in Banks . 13 The doctrine is not limited to situations in which the income earner explicitly assigns the income to another entity; it also captures situations in which the actual income earner sets up another entity and makes it seem as if that entity had earned the income itself, as was the case with the ASIG product. 14

In cases in which the true income earner is in question, the courts have held that “the taxable party is the person or entity who directed and controlled the earning of the income, rather than the person or entity who received the income.” 15 Factors that the courts consider to determine who is in control of the income depend on the particular situation at issue in the case. For example, when a personal services business is involved, the court looks at the relationship between the hirer and the worker and who has the right to direct the worker’s activities. In partnership cases, the courts apply the similarity test, asking whether the services the partnership provided are similar to those the partner provided. In other cases, the courts have inquired whether an agency relationship can be established. In yet other cases the courts have taken a broad and flexible approach and consulted all the available evidence to determine who has the ultimate direction and control over the earnings. 16

V. Factors Considered in Ryder

Judge Mark V. Holmes took a flexible approach in Ryder . He found that none of the entities that Ryder papered into existence had their own office or their own employees. They were thus unable to provide the services Ryder claims they were paid for. In fact, the entities did not provide any services at all — the services were R&A’s doing. To top it off, R&A did nothing but set up the entities, market their tax benefits, and move money around once the clients signed up for the products. There was no actual business activity conducted. The court further found that the written agreements the clients entered into with the entities that purported to provide services to them were a sham and that oral contracts with R&A were in fact what established the relevant relationship, so that R&A must be considered the contracting party. In the case of the ASIG product, for example, a client testified that the fees he paid to Ryder were part of his retirement plan. Ryder had represented to him that the ASIG product was established to create an alternative way to accumulate retirement savings. 17

Regarding the staffing product in which there existed an explicit assignment of income agreement between R&A and ELC , the court found that ELC only existed on paper and in the form of bank accounts, with the effect that R&A was ultimately controlling the income even after the assignment. A further factor that the court emphasized repeatedly was that R&A, and Ryder personally as R&A’s owner, kept benefitting from the income after the assignment (for example, in the staffing product case) or, as in the case of the ASIG product, despite the income allegedly having been earned by a third party (that is, ASIG). 18

VI. Analysis

The aforementioned factors are reflected in Blue J ’s Assigned Income From Services predictor. 19 We performed predictions for the following scenarios:

the staffing product and R&A’s assignment of the income it generated to ELC with the facts as found by the court;

the staffing product and R&A’s assignment of the income it generated to ELC if Ryder ’s version of the facts were accepted;

the ASIG product and service as the court interpreted and characterized the facts; and

the ASIG product and service according to Ryder ’s narrative.

What is interesting and indicative of the benefits that machine-learning tools such as Blue J ’s predictor can provide to tax practitioners is that even if the court had found in Ryder ’s favor on all the factual issues reasonably in dispute, Ryder would still not have been able to shift the tax liability to ELC or ASIG respectively, according to our model and analysis.

The court found that R&A contracted directly with, invoiced, and received payments from its clients regarding the staffing product up until 2004, when Ryder assigned the income generated from this product explicitly to ELC . From then onward, ELC received the payments from the clients instead of R&A. Further, the court found that ELC did not have its own employees or office space and did not conduct any business activity. Our data show that the change in the recipient of the money would have made no difference regarding the likelihood of R&A’s liability for the income tax in this scenario.

According to Ryder ’s version of the facts, ELC did have its own employees, 20 even though there is no mention of a separate office space from which ELC allegedly operated. Yet, Ryder maintains that ELC was the one providing the staffing services to its clients after the assignment of the clients to the company in January 2004. Even if Ryder had been able to convince the court of his version of the facts, it would hardly have made a dent in the likelihood of the outcome that R&A would be held liable for the tax payable on the income from the staffing product.

With Ryder ’s narrative as the underlying facts, our predictor is still 94 percent confident that R&A would have been held liable for the tax. The taxation of the income in the hands of the one who earned it is not easily avoided with a simple assignment agreement, particularly if the income earner keeps benefiting from the income after the assignment and continues to provide services himself without giving up control over the services for the benefit of the assignee. The insight gained from the decision regarding the staffing product is that the court will take a careful look behind the assignment agreement and, if it is not able to spot a legitimate assignee, the assignment agreement will be disregarded.

The court made the same factual findings regarding the ASIG product as it did for the staffing product post-assignment. Ryder , however, had more to say here in support of his case. For one, he pointed to ASIG’s main office that was located at the Morris Cottingham offices. Morris Cottingham was also the one that, on paper, contracted with clients for the insurance services and the collection of fees was conducted, again on paper, in the name of Morris Cottingham . The court also refers to actual claims that the clients made under their policies. There is also a paper trail that indicates that the clients were explicitly acknowledging and in fact paying ASIG for its costs and services. From all this we can conclude that Ryder was able to argue that ASIG had its own independent office, had one or more employees providing services, and that ASIG engaged in actual business activity. However, even if these facts had been admitted as accurately reflecting the ASIG product, our data show that with a 92 percent certainty R&A would still be liable for the income tax payable on the income the ASIG product generated. It is clear that winning a case involving the assignment of income doctrine on facts such as the ones in Ryder is an uphill battle. If the person behind the scenes remains involved with the services provided without giving up control over them, and benefits from the income generated, it is a lost cause to argue that the assignment of income doctrine should be applied with the effect that the entity that provides the services on paper is liable for the income tax.

C. Ryder as ASIG’s Agent

Our data reveal that to have a more substantial shot at succeeding with his case under the assignment of income doctrine, Ryder would have had to pursue a different line of argument altogether. Had he set R&A up as ASIG’s agent rather than tried to disguise its involvement with the purported insurance business, Ryder would have been more likely to succeed in shifting the income tax liability to ASIG. For our analysis of the effect of the different factors discussed by the court in Ryder , we assume at the outset that Ryder would do everything right — that is, ASIG would have its own workers and office, and it would do something other than just moving money around (best-case scenario). We then modify each factor one by one to reveal their respective effect.

From this scenario testing, we can conclude that if R&A had had an agency agreement with ASIG, received some form of compensation for its services from ASIG, held itself out to act on ASIG’s behalf, and the client was interested in R&A’s service because of its affiliation with ASIG, Ryder would have reduced the likelihood to 73 percent of R&A being liable for the income tax. Add to these agency factors an element of monitoring by ASIG and the most likely result flips — there would be a 64 percent likelihood that ASIG would be liable for the income tax. If ASIG were to go beyond monitoring R&A’s services by controlling them too, the likelihood that ASIG would be liable for the income tax would increase to 82 percent. Let’s say Ryder had given Morris Cottingham oversight and control over R&A’s services for ASIG, then the question whether ASIG employs any workers other than R&A arguably becomes moot because there would necessarily be an ASIG employee who oversees R&A. Accordingly, there is hardly any change in the confidence level of the prediction that ASIG is liable for the income tax when the worker factor is absent.

Interestingly, this is quite different from the effect of the office factor. Keeping everything else as-is, the absence of having its own ASIG-controlled office decreases the likelihood of ASIG being liable to pay the income tax from 82 to 54 percent. Note here that our Assigned Income From Services predictor is trained on data from relatively old cases; only 14 are from the last decade. This may explain why the existence of a physical office space is predicted to play such an important role when the courts determine whether the entity that allegedly earns the income is a legitimate business. In a post-pandemic world, it may be possible that a trend will emerge that puts less emphasis on the physical office space when determining the legitimacy of a business.

The factor that stands out as the most important one in our hypothetical scenario in which R&A is the agent of ASIG is the characterization of ASIG’s own business activity. In the absence of ASIG conducting its own business, nothing can save Ryder ’s case. This makes intuitive sense because if ASIG conducts no business, it must be R&A’s services alone that generate the income; hence R&A is liable for the tax on the income. Also very important is the contracting party factor: If the client were to contract with R&A rather than ASIG in our hypothetical scenario, the likelihood that R&A would be held liable for the income tax is back up to 72 percent, all else being equal. If the client were to contract with both R&A and ASIG, it is a close case, leaning towards ASIG’s liability with 58 percent confidence. Much less significant is who receives the payment between the two. If it is R&A, ASIG remains liable for the income tax with a likelihood of 71 percent, indicating a drop in confidence by 11 percent compared with a scenario in which ASIG received the payment.

To summarize, if Ryder had pursued a line of argument in which he set up R&A as ASIG’s agent, giving ASIG’s employee(s) monitoring power and ideally control over R&A’s services for ASIG, he would have had a better chance of succeeding under the assignment of income doctrine. As we have seen, the main prerequisite for his success would have been to convince the court that it would be appropriate to characterize ASIG as conducting business. Ideally, Ryder also would have made sure that the client contracted for the services with ASIG and not with R&A. However, it is significantly less important that ASIG receives the money from the client. The historical case law also suggests that Ryder would have been well advised to set up a physical office for ASIG; however, given the new reality of working from home, this factor may no longer be as relevant as these older previously decided cases indicate.

VII. Conclusion

We have seen that R&A’s chances to shift the liability for the tax payable on the staffing and the ASIG product income was virtually nonexistent. The difficulty of this case from the perspective of the IRS certainly lay in gathering the evidence, tracing the money through the winding paths of Ryder ’s paper labyrinth, and making it comprehensible for the court. Once this had been accomplished, the IRS had a more-or-less slam-dunk case regarding the applicability of the assignment of income doctrine. As mentioned at the outset, an assignment of income case will always be an uphill battle for the taxpayer because income is generally taxable to whoever earns it.

Yet, in cases in which the disputed question is who earned the income and not whether the assignment agreement has shifted the income tax liability, the parties must lean into the factors discussed here to convince the court of the legitimacy (or the illegitimacy, in the case of the government) of the ostensibly income-earning entity and its business. Our analysis can help decide which of the factors must be present to have a plausible argument, which ones are nice to have, and which should be given little attention in determining an efficient litigation strategy.

1   Ernest S. Ryder & Associates Inc. v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 2021-88 .

2   Lucas v. Earl , 281 U.S. 111, 114-115 (1930).

3   Ryder , T.C. Memo. 2021-88, at 7.

4   Id. at 32.

5   Id. at 17, 19, and 111-112.

6   Id. at 51-52, 111-112, and 123-126.

7   Id. at 9-12.

8   Id. at 96.

10  CCH, Federal Taxation Comprehensive Topics, at 4201.

11   Lucas , 281 U.S. at 115.

12   See , e.g. , “familial partnership” cases — Burnet v. Leininger , 285 U.S. 136 (1932); Commissioner v. Tower , 327 U.S. 280 (1946); and Commissioner v. Culbertson , 337 U.S. 733 (1949). For an application in the commercial context, see Commissioner v. Banks , 543 U.S. 426 (2005).

13   Banks , 543 U.S. at 426.

14   See , e.g. , Johnston v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 2000-315 , at 487.

16   Ray v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 2018-160 .

17   Ryder , T.C. Memo. 2021-88, at 90-91.

18   Id. at 48, 51, and 52.

19  The predictor considered several further factors that play a greater role in other fact patterns.

20  The court mentions that ELC’s letterhead set out six employees and their respective positions with the company.

END FOOTNOTES

All Subjects

4.4 Assignment of income doctrine

4 min read • july 30, 2024

The assignment of income doctrine is a crucial concept in tax law that prevents taxpayers from avoiding taxes by transferring income rights. It originated from the 1930 Supreme Court case Lucas v. Earl and applies to both earned and unearned income.

This doctrine emphasizes control and economic benefit over legal ownership when determining tax liability . It impacts various scenarios, including employment wages, intellectual property royalties, and financial winnings. Understanding its application is essential for proper tax planning and compliance.

Assignment of Income Doctrine

Fundamental principles and origins.

• Assignment of income doctrine prevents taxpayers from avoiding taxes by transferring the right to receive income to another party
• Originated from Supreme Court case Lucas v. Earl (1930) established income taxed to the person who earns it
• Applies to both earned income (wages, salaries) and unearned income (interest, dividends)
• Focuses on who controls the earning of income rather than who ultimately receives it
• Based on principle that economic benefit of income should be taxed to person who earns or creates right to receive it
• Closely related to substance-over-form principle looks at economic reality of transaction rather than legal form
• Supports progressive tax system by preventing high-income earners from shifting income to lower tax brackets

Top images from around the web for Fundamental Principles and Origins

非裔美国人民权运动 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书 View original

Is this image relevant?

Tax Incidence | Macroeconomics View original

Lucas v. Earl - Wikipedia View original

Key Concepts and Applications

• Emphasizes control and economic benefit over legal ownership or receipt of income
• Anticipatory assignments (assigning future income) generally ineffective for tax purposes
• Timing of income vesting or accrual crucial in determining effectiveness of assignment
• Applies to various income sources (employment wages, royalties, prize winnings)
• Relevant in gift scenarios particularly when gift involves right to receive future income
• Impacts trusts and estates requiring careful consideration of control and economic benefit
• Interacts with other tax principles ( constructive receipt , economic benefit doctrine)

Applying the Assignment of Income Doctrine

Employment and contractor scenarios.

• Prevents employees from assigning wages to lower-taxed individuals or entities
• Example: Employee cannot assign salary to spouse in lower tax bracket
• Applies to independent contractors attempting to redirect income to controlled entities
• Example: Consultant cannot assign consulting fees to personal corporation to avoid self-employment tax
• Affects stock options and deferred compensation arrangements
• Example: Executive cannot assign stock option gains to family trust
• Impacts professional athletes and entertainers attempting to assign income to loan-out corporations
• Example: Actor cannot assign movie earnings to personal service corporation to reduce tax liability

Intellectual Property and Financial Winnings

• Creator of intellectual property generally taxed on income even if rights assigned to another party
• Example: Author taxed on book royalties even if publishing rights sold to company
• Applies to lottery winnings preventing winners from assigning prize to avoid taxes
• Example: Lottery winner cannot assign winnings to family members to split tax burden
• Affects gambling winnings and contest prizes
• Example: Poker player cannot assign tournament winnings to lower-taxed entity
• Impacts patent and trademark licensing fees
• Example: Inventor taxed on patent royalties even if patent rights transferred to corporation

Income from Services vs Property

Service income characteristics.

• Focuses on who performs work that generates income
• Anticipatory assignments of future service income generally ineffective for tax purposes
• Example: Lawyer cannot assign fees from future cases to family members
• Time of vesting or accrual of right to income crucial in determining effectiveness of assignment
• Example: Bonus earned in current year but paid next year still taxed to employee who earned it
• Special considerations for multi-year service contracts and deferred compensation arrangements
• Example: Professional athlete's multi-year contract income taxed as earned, not when paid

Property Income Characteristics

• Typically assigned based on who owns or controls income-producing property
• Fruit and tree analogy tree (property) can be given away but fruit (income) taxed to owner when it ripens
• Example: Rental property owner taxed on rent income even if right to receive rent assigned to another party
• Effectiveness of assignment depends on whether property itself or merely income from it has been transferred
• Example: Gifting stock transfers future dividend income but selling stock and gifting proceeds does not
• Special rules apply to specific types of property (installment sales, certain financial instruments)
• Example: Seller in installment sale taxed on gain as payments received even if note assigned to third party

Tax Consequences of Income Assignment

Family and entity assignments.

• Intra-family assignments scrutinized closely by IRS due to potential for tax avoidance
• Kiddie tax rules limit effectiveness of assigning investment income to minor children
• Example: Parents cannot avoid taxes by transferring large investment accounts to young children
• Assignments to spouses may have different consequences depending on joint or separate filing status
• Example: Income-splitting between spouses ineffective in community property states
• Family limited partnerships or trusts to assign income may have gift tax implications
• Example: Transferring income-producing assets to family trust may trigger gift tax
• Corporate assignments (personal service corporations) subject to special tax rules to prevent abuse
• Example: Professional corporation must pay reasonable compensation to shareholder-employees

Charitable and International Assignments

• Assignments to charitable organizations subject to specific rules may provide tax benefits if structured correctly
• Example: Donating appreciated stock to charity avoids capital gains tax and provides deduction
• International assignments of income involve complex issues related to foreign tax credits and transfer pricing
• Example: Multinational corporation must follow transfer pricing rules when assigning income between subsidiaries
• Cross-border assignments may trigger withholding tax obligations and treaty considerations
• Example: Royalty payments to foreign entity may require withholding tax unless reduced by tax treaty
• Expatriation and citizenship renunciation can affect income assignment and taxation
• Example: U.S. citizens living abroad still taxed on worldwide income unless specific exceptions apply

Key Terms to Review ( 16 )

© 2024 fiveable inc. all rights reserved., ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..

• Tax Research The gold standard of insightful and timely tax intelligence
• Fixed Assets Automatically and accurately calculate depreciation
• Tax Provision The most powerful ASC 740 engine on the market
• Workpapers Automated data prep and spreadsheets tailored for tax
• Income Tax Planner Powerful income tax planning and projection tool
• Corporate Tax Analyzer Automate complex corporate income tax scenarios
• Tax Management Portfolios Over 500 Tax Management Portfolios from the most accomplished minds in tax
• Large Corporations Work smarter with tax solutions that help you strategize
• Mid-Market Corporations Add more value without adding to your workload
• Advisory Firms Access all the tools you need to support your clients
• Government Get all you need to maximize efficiency and reduce risk
• International The tools you need to accurately and confidently handle cross-border transactions
• Getting Started Modernize your tax workflow with integrated tools
• About Our Authors See the winners of our coveted tax awards
• Press Releases Read our latest news and product updates
• Our Approach to AI Discover our formula for powerful AI tools you can trust
• Request Pricing

Gross Income: Tax Benefit, Claim of Right and Assignment of Income (Portfolio 502)

James Maule

Professor of Law, Emeritus

Villanova University School of Law

At a glance

I. Introduction II. Tax Benefit Doctrine III. Claim of Right Doctrine IV. Assignment of Income

The Bloomberg Tax Portfolio, Gross Income: Tax Benefit, Claim of Right and Assignment of Income, No. 502, addresses three areas of gross income that are substantially judicial in origin and nature. It analyzes in depth the nature, concept, scope, and application of the tax benefit doctrine, the claim of right doctrine, and the assignment of income doctrine.

The tax benefit doctrine excludes from a taxpayer's gross income any recovery or refund of an amount deducted in a prior taxable year to the extent the deduction did not reduce tax liability. Under the claim of right doctrine, a taxpayer must include in gross income for the year of receipt any income received under a claim of right free of restrictions.

Under the assignment of income doctrine, gross income from personal services must be included in the gross income of the person who rendered the services. In addition, under that doctrine, gross income from property must be included in the gross income of the person who beneficially owns the property.

The Worksheets include relevant legislative history for provisions discussed in detail and for which regulations have not yet been issued.

Request pricing

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy , and Terms of Service apply.

By submitting my information, I agree to the privacy policy and to be contacted about Bloomberg Industry Group products and services.

Related portfolios

ASSIGNMENT OF INCOME DOCTRINE – SECTION 61 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE – J. RONALD JACKSON

I don’t want to pay tax on this income, assignment of income doctrine.

By:  J Ronald “Ron” Jackson, MBA, CPA

Under federal income tax law gross income is taxed to the person who earns it or to the owner of property that generates the income. It is not uncommon for a high tax bracket taxpayer to want to shift income to a lower tax bracket family member in order to save on taxes and the income stay within the family unit. Alternatively, one who has appreciated stock or other type of property that he knows will be sold in the near future may wish to save on income taxes by gifting a portion of the property to a lower tax bracket family member who will report the sale at his or her lower income tax bracket. Alternatively, the individual may want a double benefit by gifting the appreciated property to a qualified charity thereby gaining a charitable income tax deduction for the value of the contributed property and being relieved of paying income taxes on the gain from the sale of the gifted property. This shifting of income, if permitted for income tax purposes, may provide considerable income tax savings.

The assignment of income doctrine was developed from court decisions which decided the issues, including the various methods employed in attempting to determine who earned the income. There was a time during the World War II years and thereafter, until around 1963, that the top income tax brackets could be as high as 91% – 93%. In addition to family members, the issues often arose when a high bracket taxpayer would make a gift of property (often the issues were gifts of appreciated stock that were to be sold shortly) to a qualified charity. The taxpayer would then take a charitable income tax deduction and not report the gain as he no longer owned the stock when sold. This shifting of income to a lower bracket taxpayer could have large savings in taxes for the high bracket taxpayer.

A simple example of income earned and taxed to the one who earns the income is when one works for weekly wages. The work week ends on Friday but the actual paycheck is not delivered until the following Wednesday. The wages are earned, for income tax purposes, at the end of the week (Friday). If the individual tells his employer to pay the earned wages to the individual’s mother, and the employer did that, the wages would still be taxed for federal income tax purposes to the individual since he earned the wages. The fact he may have made a gift of his earned wages does not change the income tax treatment as his employer has to include the earned wages on the individual’s W-2 form.

The above is a simple illustration of the doctrine that one who earns the income has to pay income tax on the wages. Let’s look at another situation. Suppose Perry, an individual taxpayer, owns all of the stock ownership in a very successful corporation (Company A) that he has run for many years. Perry is approached by the owners of another corporation (Company B) with an interest in purchasing Perry’s stock ownership in Company A. Negotiations have progressed and a total value has been tentatively negotiated of $5,000,000.00. The actual contract is still to be finalized and there are some remaining details to settle. Perry believes it will be finalized and signed within a reasonably short time. Perry, who is in a very high federal income tax bracket and who is a very civic-minded individual, has been told of the benefit of donating appreciated property to charity. Perry contacts the local Community Foundation and arranges to create the Perry Charitable Fund through the Community Foundation. The charitable fund will provide donations to his church and to other qualified charities that Perry usually supports. Perry then donates fifteen percent of his stock ownership, valued at $750,000.00 to the Community Foundation. Later after negotiations are completed, all of Company A’s stock is sold to Company B for the negotiated price of $5,000,000.00. Perry is happy. He has made a substantial profit from his years of work, made a donation to his favorite charity for which he plans to take a charitable income tax deduction, and will only have to report and pay income tax at capital gain rates on 85% of his stock as he has given 15% away.

Perry files his income tax return for the year and reports his taxable gain on the sale of his 85% ownership interest in Company A. About one year later Perry is audited by the IRS. The IRS agent questions why he did not report gain on the 15% of stock given to the Foundation. Perry replies that he did not own the stock as it was gifted to the charity before the date of the sale. The IRS auditor states that Perry should pay income tax on the gain on the stock given to the Community Foundation since it appears to have been a “done deal” before Perry gave the stock away and for that reason Perry owes income tax on all of the stock. Perry argues that no contracts were signed until weeks after the gift and that the deal could have fallen through at any time before signed by all parties. Perry disagreed with the audit. His tax dispute is now pending before the United States Tax Court. How will the court decide?

Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that gross income means all income earned from whatever source derived, and then lists several examples such as wages, services rendered, gains from the sales of property, and several other examples. In 1930, the U. S. Supreme Court summarized when addressing who earned income that “The fruits cannot be attributed to a different tree from that on which they grew.” Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930). This in effect clarified that gross income is to be taxed to the one that earns it and led to the fact that one cannot avoid paying income tax on earned income by gifting the property that created the income when it has been earned on or before the gift. An example would be when a corporation declares a dividend payable say on November 1st to stockholders of record on October 10th. A stockholder who owned the stock on October 10th is the one who has earned the income even if he or she sells or assigns their stock between October 10th and November 1st. The dividend is taxed to the owner on October 10, the date the dividend was declared.

In Perry’s case he argues that the negotiations were not complete when he made his gift, and that Company B could have backed out of the deal. When the court decides it will consider the stage of the negotiations, whether Company B had the financial backing to complete the deal, whether any contracts or preliminary statements of intent were prepared for review, and how long was the interval between the tentative agreement and the actual sale will all be considered. Situations like these happen from time to time. When the issue arises, it should be discussed in advance of the transaction, if possible, with your legal tax advisors who should be well versed in this area of tax law. One should be aware of the assignment of income doctrine in situations where it could apply in connection with his/her estate planning. What if this had been a publicly traded company?

If you have questions regarding   Assignment of Income Doctrine   and would like to discuss these issues, please contact Cody Walls, MBA, CPA at Denton Law Firm at 270-450-8253.

THIS ARTICLE IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE GENERAL INFORMATION PREPARED BY THE PROFESSIONALS AT DENTON LAW FIRM, PLLC IN REGARD TO THE SUBJECT MATTER COVERED. IT IS PROVIDED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE AUTHOR IS NOT ENGAGED IN RENDERING LEGAL, ACCOUNTING, OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE. ALTHOUGH PREPARED BY PROFESSIONALS, THESE MATERIALS SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. IF LEGAL ADVICE OR OTHER EXPERT ASSISTANCE IS REQUIRED, THE SERVICE OF A PROFESSIONAL SHOULD BE SOUGHT.

• Frost Brown Todd

Section 1202 Planning: When Might the Assignment of Income Doctrine Apply to a Gift of QSBS?

Jan 26, 2022

Categories:

Blogs Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) Tax Law Defined™ Blog

Scott W. Dolson

Section 1202 allows taxpayers to exclude gain on the sale of QSBS if all eligibility requirements are met.  Section 1202 also places a cap on the amount of gain that a stockholder is entitled to exclude with respect to a single issuer’s stock. [i]   A taxpayer has at least a $10 million per-issuer gain exclusion, but some taxpayer’s expected gain exceeds that cap.  In our article Maximizing the Section 1202 Gain Exclusion Amount , we discussed planning techniques for increasing, and in some cases multiplying, the $10 million gain exclusion cap through gifting QSBS to other taxpayers. [ii]  Increased awareness of this planning technique has contributed to a flurry of stockholders seeking last-minute tax planning help.  This article looks at whether you can “multiply” Section 1202’s gain exclusion by gifting qualified small business stock (QSBS) when a sale transaction is imminent.

This is one in a series of articles and blogs addressing planning issues relating to QSBS and the workings of Sections 1202 and 1045.  During the past several years, there has been an increase in the use of C corporations as the start-up entity of choice.  Much of this interest can be attributed to the reduction in the corporate rate from 35% to 21%, but savvy founders and investors have also focused on qualifying for Section 1202’s generous gain exclusion.  Recently proposed tax legislation sought to curb Section 1202’s benefits, but that legislation, along with the balance of President Biden’s Build Back Better bill, is currently stalled in Congress.

The Benefits of Gifting QSBS

Section 1202(h)(1) provides that if a stockholder gifts QSBS, the recipient of the gift is treated as “(A) having acquired such stock in the same manner as the transferor, and (B) having held such stock during any continuous period immediately preceding the transfer during which it was held (or treated as held under this subsection by the transferor.”  This statute literally allows a holder of $100 million of QSBS to gift $10 million worth to each of nine friends, with the result that the holder and his nine friends each having the right to claim a separate $10 million gain exclusion.  Under Section 1202, a taxpayer with $20 million in expected gain upon the sale of founder QSBS can increase the overall tax savings from approximately $2.4 million (based on no Federal income tax on $10 million of QSBS gain) to $4.8 million (based on no Federal income tax on $20 million of QSBS gain) by gifting $10 million worth of QSBS to friends and family. [iii]

A reasonable question to ask is whether it is ever too late to make a gift of QSBS for wealth transfer or Section 1202 gain exclusion cap planning?  What about when a sale process is looming but hasn’t yet commenced?  Is it too late to make a gift when a nonbinding letter of intent to sell the company has been signed?   What about the situation where a binding agreement has been signed but there are various closing conditions remaining to be satisfied, perhaps including shareholder approval?  Finally, is it too late to make a gift when a definitive agreement has been signed and all material conditions to closing have been satisfied?

Although neither Section 1202 nor any other tax authorities interpreting Section 1202 address whether there are any exceptions to Section 1202’s favorable treatment of gifts based on the timing of the gift, the IRS is not without potential weapons in its arsenal.

Application of the Assignment of Income Doctrine

If QSBS is gifted in close proximity to a sale, the IRS might claim that the donor stockholder was making an anticipatory assignment of income. [iv]

As first enunciated by the Supreme Court in 1930, the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine holds that income is taxable to the person who earns it, and that such taxes cannot be avoided through “arrangement[s] by which the fruits are attributed to a different tree from that on which they grew.” [v]   Many assignment of income cases involve stock gifted to charities immediately before a prearranged stock sale, coupled with the donor claiming a charitable deduction for full fair market value of the gifted stock.

In Revenue Ruling 78-197, the IRS concluded in the context of a charitable contribution coupled with a prearranged redemption that the assignment of income doctrine would apply only if the donee is legally bound, or can be compelled by the corporation, to surrender shares for redemption. [vi]  In the aftermath of this ruling, the Tax Court has refused to adopt a bright line test but has generally followed the ruling’s reasoning.  For example, in Estate of Applestein v. Commissioner , the taxpayer gifted to custodial accounts for his children stock in a corporation that had entered into a merger agreement with another corporation. Prior to the gift, the merger agreement was approved by the stockholders of both corporations.  Although the gift occurred before the closing of the merger transaction, the Tax Court held that the “right to the merger proceeds had virtually ripened prior to the transfer and that the transfer of the stock constituted a transfer of the merger proceeds rather than an interest in a viable corporation.” [vii]   In contrast, in Rauenhorst v. Commissioner , the Tax Court concluded that a nonbinding letter of intent would not support the IRS’ assignment of income argument because the stockholder at the time of making the gift was not legally bound nor compelled to sell his equity. [viii]

In Ferguson v. Commissioner , the Tax Court focused on whether the percentage of shares tendered pursuant to a tender offer was the functional equivalent of stockholder approval of a merger transaction, which the court viewed as converting an interest in a viable corporation to the right to receive cash before the gifting of stock to charities. [ix]   The Tax Court concluded that there was an anticipatory assignment of income in spite of the fact that there remained certain contingencies before the sale would be finalized.  The Tax Court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that the application of the assignment of income doctrine should be conditioned on the occurrence of a formal stockholder vote, noting that the reality and substance of the particular events under consideration should determine tax consequences.

Guidelines for Last-Minute Gifts

Based on the guidelines established by Revenue Ruling 78-197 and the cases discussed above, the IRS should be unsuccessful if it asserts an assignment of income argument in a situation where the gift of QSBS is made prior to the signing of a definitive sale agreement, even if the company has entered into a nonbinding letter of intent.  The IRS’ position should further weakened with the passage of time between the making of a gift and the entering into of a definitive sale agreement.  In contrast, the IRS should have a stronger argument if the gift is made after the company enters into a binding sale agreement.  And the IRS’ position should be stronger still if the gift of QSBS is made after satisfaction of most or all material closing conditions, and in particular after stockholder approval.  Stockholders should be mindful of Tax Court’s comment that the reality and substance of events determines tax consequences, and that it will often be a nuanced set of facts that ultimately determines whether the IRS would be successful arguing for application of the assignment of income doctrine.

Transfers of QSBS Incident to Divorce

The general guidelines discussed above may not apply to transfers of QSBS between former spouses “incident to divorce” that are governed by Section 1041.  Section 1041(b)(1) confirms that a transfer incident to divorce will be treated as a gift for Section 1202 purposes.  Private Letter Ruling 9046004 addressed the situation where stock was transferred incident to a divorce and the corporation immediately redeemed the stock.  In that ruling, the IRS commented that “under section 1041, Congress gave taxpayers a mechanism for determining which of the two spouses will pay the tax upon the ultimate disposition of the asset.  The spouses are thus free to negotiate between themselves whether the ‘owner’ spouse will first sell the asset, recognize the gain or loss, and then transfer to the transferee spouse the proceeds from the sale, or whether the owner spouse will first transfer the asset to the transferee spouse who will then recognize gain or loss upon its subsequent sale.”  Thus, while there are some tax cases where the assignment of income doctrine has been successfully asserted by the IRS in connection with transfers between spouses incident to divorce, Section 1041 and tax authorities interpreting its application do provide divorcing taxpayers an additional argument against application of the doctrine, perhaps even where the end result might be a multiplication of Section 1202’s gain exclusion.

More Resources 

In spite of the potential for extraordinary tax savings, many experienced tax advisors are not familiar with QSBS planning. Venture capitalists, founders and investors who want to learn more about QSBS planning opportunities are directed to several articles on the Frost Brown Todd website:

• Planning for the Potential Reduction in Section 1202’s Gain Exclusion
• Section 1202 Qualification Checklist and Planning Pointers
• A Roadmap for Obtaining (and not Losing) the Benefits of Section 1202 Stock
• Maximizing the Section 1202 Gain Exclusion Amount
• Advanced Section 1045 Planning
• Recapitalizations Involving Qualified Small Business Stock
• Section 1202 and S Corporations
• The 21% Corporate Rate Breathes New Life into IRC § 1202
• View all QSBS Resources

Contact  Scott Dolson  or  Melanie McCoy  (QSBS estate and trust planning) if you want to discuss any QSBS issues by telephone or video conference.

[i] References to “Section” are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

[ii] The planning technique of gifting QSBS recently came under heavy criticism in an article written by two investigative reporters.  See Jesse Drucker and Maureen Farrell, The Peanut Butter Secret: A Lavish Tax Dodge for the Ultrawealthy.  New York Times , December 28, 2021.

[iii] But in our opinion, in order to avoid a definite grey area in Section 1202 law, the donee should not be the stockholder’s spouse.  The universe of donees includes nongrantor trusts, including Delaware and Nevada asset protection trusts.

[iv] This article assumes that the holder of the stock doesn’t have sufficient tax basis in the QSBS to take advantage of the 10X gain exclusion cap – for example, the stock might be founder shares with a basis of .0001 per share.

[v]   Lucas v. Earl , 281 U.S. 111 (1930).  The US Supreme Court later summarized the assignment of income doctrine as follows:  “A person cannot escape taxation by anticipatory assignments, however skillfully devised, where the right to receive income has vested.”  Harrison v. Schaffner , 312 U.S. 579, 582 (1941).

[vi] Revenue Ruling 78-197, 1978-1 CB 83.

[vii] Estate of Applestein v. Commissioner , 80 T.C. 331, 346 (1983).

[viii] Gerald A. Rauenhorst v. Commissioner , 119 T.C. 157 (2002).

[ix] Ferguson v. Commissioner , 108 T.C. 244 (1997).

Before you send us any information, know that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. We cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest with any existing clients. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any legal matter that involves you unless and until you receive a letter from us in which we agree to represent you (an "engagement letter"). Only after you receive an engagement letter will you be our client and be properly able to exchange information with us. If you understand and agree with the foregoing and you are not our client and will not divulge confidential information to us, you may contact us for general information.

• Payments Online
• Secure File Transfer
• Windes Portal
• CMS – Transparency in Coverage

Tax Law on “Assignment of Income”

Gross income is taxed to the individual who earns it or to an owner of property that generates the income. Under the so-called “assignment of income doctrine,” a taxpayer may not avoid tax by assigning the right to income to another. Specifically, the assignment of income doctrine holds that a taxpayer who earns income from services that the taxpayer performs or property that the taxpayer owns generally cannot avoid liability for tax on that income by assigning it to another person or entity. The doctrine is frequently applied to assignments to creditors, controlled entities, family trusts and charities.

A taxpayer cannot, for tax purposes, assign income that has already accrued from property the taxpayer owns. This aspect of the assignment of income doctrine is often applied to interest, dividends, rents, royalties, and trust income. And, under the same rationale, an assignment of an interest in a lottery ticket is effective only if it occurs before the ticket is ascertained to be a winning ticket. However, a taxpayer can shift liability for capital gains on property not yet sold by making a bona fide gift of the underlying property. In that case, the donee of a gift of securities takes the “carryover” basis of the donor. For example, shares now valued at $50 gifted to a donee in which the donor has a tax basis of $10, would yield a taxable gain to the donee of its eventual sale price less the $10 carryover basis. The donor escapes income tax on any of the appreciation.

For more information about this article, please contact our tax professionals at [email protected] or toll free at 844.4WINDES (844.494.6337).

• Audit & Assurance
• Audits, Reviews & Compilations
• Employee Benefit Plan Audits
• Nonprofit & Compliance Audits
• Special Reports
• Business Entity
• Cost Segregation
• Estate & Trust
• International
• State and Local Tax (SALT) Compliance
• Succession Planning
• Tax Credits & Incentives
• ASC 740 Income Taxes
• ASC 842 Leases
• Advisory Services
• Corporate Transparency Act
• Employee Benefit Services
• Governance Risk and Compliance (GRC)/Cyber
• Human Resources Consulting Placement
• Mergers & Acquisitions Strategy
• Outsourced Accounting Services
• Value Acceleration and Exit Planning
• Wealth Management
• Construction
• Hospitality & Leisure
• Manufacturing
• Medical Practices
• Professional Services
• Real Estate
• Retail & Consumer Products
• Transportation, Trade & Maritime
• Wholesale & Distribution
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• Long Beach Office
• Los Angeles Office
• Orange County Office

The CPA Journal is broadly recognized as an outstanding, technical-refereed publication aimed at public practitioners, management, educators, and other accounting professionals. It is edited by CPAs for CPAs. Our goal is to provide CPAs and other accounting professionals with the information and news to enable them to be successful accountants, managers, and executives in today's practice environments.

Home > LAWREVS > WASHINGTONLAWREVIEW > WLR > Vol. 65 > No. 1 (1990)

Washington Law Review

Beyond the fruit tree: a proposal for revision of the assignment of income doctrine—caruth corp. v. united states, 865 f.2d 644 (5th cir. 1989).

Traci A. Sammeth

The Supreme Court developed the assignment of income doctrine to solve the question of who the proper taxpayer is under section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code. The question arises when individuals transfer income that rightly belongs to them without declaring the income for federal tax purposes. The assignment doctrine attributes income, for tax purposes, to the earner or practical owner of the income notwithstanding that person's assignment of the income. However, the Supreme Court's development of the doctrine has been inadequate, as exemplified by the recent decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Caruth Corp. v. United State. Caruth demonstrates the improper focus of the traditional doctrine on form rather than substance. The doctrine should be redefined to attribute assigned income to taxpayers based upon who controls and enjoys that income rather than upon the form of the transaction in which the income was transferred.

Recommended Citation

Traci A. Sammeth, Note, Beyond the Fruit Tree: A Proposal for Revision of the Assignment of Income Doctrine—Caruth Corp. v. United States, 865 F.2d 644 (5th Cir. 1989) , 65 W ash. L. R ev. 229 (1990). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol65/iss1/9

Since December 19, 2018

Included in

Taxation-Federal Commons

• Journal Home
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Advanced Search

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

26 CFR § 1.451-2 - Constructive receipt of income.

(a) General rule. Income although not actually reduced to a taxpayer 's possession is constructively received by him in the taxable year during which it is credited to his account , set apart for him, or otherwise made available so that he may draw upon it at any time, or so that he could have drawn upon it during the taxable year if notice of intention to withdraw had been given. However, income is not constructively received if the taxpayer 's control of its receipt is subject to substantial limitations or restrictions. Thus, if a corporation credits its employees with bonus stock , but the stock is not available to such employees until some future date, the mere crediting on the books of the corporation does not constitute receipt . In the case of interest , dividends , or other earnings (whether or not credited) payable in respect of any deposit or account in a bank , building and loan association, savings and loan association, or similar institution, the following are not substantial limitations or restrictions on the taxpayer 's control over the receipt of such earnings:

(1) A requirement that the deposit or account , and the earnings thereon, must be withdrawn in multiples of even amounts;

(2) The fact that the taxpayer would, by withdrawing the earnings during the taxable year , receive earnings that are not substantially less in comparison with the earnings for the corresponding period to which the taxpayer would be entitled had he left the account on deposit until a later date (for example , if an amount equal to three months' interest must be forfeited upon withdrawal or redemption before maturity of a one year or less certificate of deposit, time deposit, bonus plan , or other deposit arrangement then the earnings payable on premature withdrawal or redemption would be substantially less when compared with the earnings available at maturity);

(3) A requirement that the earnings may be withdrawn only upon a withdrawal of all or part of the deposit or account . However, the mere fact that such institutions may pay earnings on withdrawals, total or partial, made during the last three business days of any calendar month ending a regular quarterly or semiannual earnings period at the applicable rate calculated to the end of such calendar month shall not constitute constructive receipt of income by any depositor or account holder in any such institution who has not made a withdrawal during such period;

(4) A requirement that a notice of intention to withdraw must be given in advance of the withdrawal. In any case when the rate of earnings payable in respect of such a deposit or account depends on the amount of notice of intention to withdraw that is given, earnings at the maximum rate are constructively received during the taxable year regardless of how long the deposit or account was held during the year or whether, in fact, any notice of intention to withdraw is given during the year . However, if in the taxable year of withdrawal the depositor or account holder receives a lower rate of earnings because he failed to give the required notice of intention to withdraw, he shall be allowed an ordinary loss in such taxable year in an amount equal to the difference between the amount of earnings previously included in gross income and the amount of earnings actually received. See section 165 and the regulations thereunder.

(b) Examples of constructive receipt. Amounts payable with respect to interest coupons which have matured and are payable but which have not been cashed are constructively received in the taxable year during which the coupons mature, unless it can be shown that there are no funds available for payment of the interest during such year . Dividends on corporate stock are constructively received when unqualifiedly made subject to the demand of the shareholder. However, if a dividend is declared payable on December 31 and the corporation followed its usual practice of paying the dividends by checks mailed so that the shareholders would not receive them until January of the following year , such dividends are not considered to have been constructively received in December. Generally, the amount of dividends or interest credited on savings bank deposits or to shareholders of organizations such as building and loan associations or cooperative banks is income to the depositors or shareholders for the taxable year when credited. However, if any portion of such dividends or interest is not subject to withdrawal at the time credited, such portion is not constructively received and does not constitute income to the depositor or shareholder until the taxable year in which the portion first may be withdrawn. Accordingly, if, under a bonus or forfeiture plan , a portion of the dividends or interest is accumulated and may not be withdrawn until the maturity of the plan , the crediting of such portion to the account of the shareholder or depositor does not constitute constructive receipt . In this case, such credited portion is income to the depositor or shareholder in the year in which the plan matures. However, in the case of certain deposits made after December 31, 1970, in banks, domestic building and loan associations, and similar financial institutions, the ratable inclusion rules of section 1232(a)(3) apply. See § 1.1232-3A . Accrued interest on unwithdrawn insurance policy dividends is gross income to the taxpayer for the first taxable year during which such interest may be withdrawn by him.

• < Previous

Home > Faculty Scholarship > Articles > 2265

The Agency Exception to the Anticipatory Assignment Doctrine

Douglas A. Kahn , University of Michigan Law School Follow Jeffrey H. Kahn , Florida State University College of Law Follow

Document Type

Publication date.

In this article, the authors discuss the agency exception to the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine and explain the policy justification for the exception.

Reprinted with the permission of Tax Analysts.

Recommended Citation

Kahn, Douglas A. and Jeffrey H. Kahn. "The Agency Exception to the Anticipatory Assignment Doctrine." Tax Notes 146 (2015): 555-558.

Available for download on Sunday, May 04, 2025

Since October 05, 2021

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Submissions

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

The Agency Exception to the Anticipatory Assignment Doctrine

Tax Notes, Vol. 146, p. 555, 2015

FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 741

FSU College of Law, Law, Business & Economics Paper No. 15-10

U of Michigan Law & Econ Research Paper

U of Michigan Public Law Research Paper

4 Pages Posted: 11 Mar 2015 Last revised: 20 May 2016

Douglas A. Kahn

University of Michigan Law School

Jeffrey H. Kahn

Harry M. Walborsky Professor, Florida State University College of Law; Associate Dean, Business Program

Date Written: May 4, 2015

One consequence of having graduated income tax rates is that it becomes advantageous to shift income from a high bracket taxpayer to a person in a lower tax bracket. A number of different vehicles have been tried to shift the incidence of the income tax to another person, and the courts and Congress have adopted a number of rules to prevent that from occurring. As early as 1930, the Supreme Court adopted the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine to prevent a person who anticipates earning income from his services from shifting that income to another person in a lower tax bracket. Income is taxed to the person whose services produced it rather than to the person who has the beneficial right to possess the income once it is earned. This article discusses the tax treatment of an employee whose services create income for his employer. The anticipatory assignment of income doctrine does not apply in these circumstances under the so-called agency exception. This article explains the policy justification of the agency exception and uses examples to help illustrate when and when not the agency exception should apply.

Keywords: Anticipatory Assignment of Income, Anticipation of Income, Agency Exception

JEL Classification: H2, H20, H22, H24, H26, H29

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

University of Michigan Law School ( email )

625 South State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 United States 734-647-4043 (Phone)

Jeffrey H. Kahn (Contact Author)

Harry m. walborsky professor, florida state university college of law; associate dean, business program ( email ).

425 W. Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32306 United States 850.644.7474 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/jkahn.html

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, university of michigan law school, law & economics research paper series.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

University of Michigan Law School, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series

Tax law & policy ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal