• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Pridgeon & Zoss, PLLC

Just another WordPress site

  • Home
  • Firm Overview
    • Review Us
  • Meet Our Attorneys
  • Tax Law Services
    • CP504 Notice in MN
  • Professional Referrals
  • Our Required Retainer Deposit & Fees
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Home / Audits / The taxpayer argues it was a sham? Pt. 2
  • Home
  • Firm Overview
    • Review Us
  • Meet Our Attorneys
  • Tax Law Services
    • CP504 Notice in MN
  • Professional Referrals
  • Our Required Retainer Deposit & Fees
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Call
Contact
Blog

The taxpayer argues it was a sham? Pt. 2

The taxpayer’s argument was clever, in that if all of their transactions were viewed as shams, and where nothing of any real  economic substance happened, then there would be no event triggering of tax recognition, as no property would have changed hands.

The Tax Court, however, disagreed with their assertion. The court noted that the majority of transactions were shams, as the creation of new partnerships, short sales and other related steps had no business purpose beside tax avoidance, and could be disregarded.

However, the court found that the transaction that transferred the ownership of the property from the family partnership to the family was not a sham. The family partnership had owned the property for years. At this point in time, the owners wanted to retire and transfer those assets from the partnership to the family, which the court viewed as a transaction of non-tax substance, was the real goal of their machinations.

They merely wanted to engineer the deal in such a way as to eliminate or minimize any taxable gain. Nonetheless, the separation of the property from the partnership and transfer of it to the family was fundamental goal, as they wanted to sell the funeral homes operation to a third-party corporation and the family members would lease the real property back to that corporation.

The court refused to allow the taxpayer to play “the audit lottery,” where the taxpayer obtains the tax advantage of the sham transaction if they are not audited, but if they are caught by an audit, to then claim as a defense that the entire series of transactions were all shams, and that there was no taxable event.

Source: ustaxcourt.gov, “CNT INVESTORS, LLC, CHARLES C. CARROLL, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,” 144 T.C. No. 11, March 23, 2015

On Behalf of Pridgeon & Zoss, PLLC May 08 2015 Audits

Primary Sidebar

Do Not Delay Responding to a Tax Notice

Name(Required)

Practice Areas

Tax Disputes

  • Tax Litigation
  • Audits
  • Tax Appeals
    • Appealing a Levy Action

Business & Payroll Taxes

  • Trust Fund Assessments
  • Complying with Sales and Use Tax Laws

Self-Employed

  • No Taxes Withheld

Outstanding Balances

  • IRS Collections and Currently Not Collectible Status
  • Settlement Options
    • Offers in Compromise
    • Installment Agreements

Latest Blogs

5 Things to Do if You Get Audited in Minnesota

March 27, 2023

What is a Trust Fund Recovery Penalty?

January 31, 2023

A Guide to the Minnesota Tax Appeal Process

January 27, 2023

The Secret to Successful Self-Employment

October 19, 2022

Things You Should Expect Being Self-Employed in Minnesota

October 13, 2022

Footer

Edina Tax Law Office

4951 W 77th Street, Box 11
Edina, MN 55435

Telephone: 952-835-8320

Fax: 612-682-4711

Roseville Tax Law Office:

1915 Hwy 36 West, Box 3
Roseville, MN 55113

Telephone: 612-455-8948

Pridgeon & Zoss, PLLC provides legal counsel for clients in Minnesota and Western Wisconsin

© 2025 Pridgeon & Zoss, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy