- 10 -
C. Whether Richter v. Commissioner Is Distinguishable
Petitioners contend that Richter v. Commissioner, supra, is
distinguishable from the instant case because, in Richter, the
taxpayer received no income from HEH, and HEH made no allocation
of income to the taxpayer; in contrast, petitioners contend that
petitioner received $800 from HEH, and HEH allocated income to
petitioner as shown by HEH’s filed 1996 return and attached
amended Schedule K-1. We conclude that Richter is not
distinguishable for reasons discussed next.
1. Whether HEH Allocated Income to Petitioner in 1996
Petitioners contend that, unlike the taxpayer in Richter to
whom HEH did not allocate income, HEH allocated income to
petitioner in 1996. Petitioners contend that the amended
Schedule K-1 attached to HEH’s 1996 return establishes that HEH
allocated income to petitioner in 1996. We disagree. The 1996
HEH return and the attached amended Schedule K-1 for petitioner
were prepared 9 months after petitioners filed their petition,
apparently in anticipation of trial. Petitioner’s amended
Schedule K-1 was never sent to him. Petitioners did not report
any income or other item (other than the energy credit) from HEH
on their 1996 return. Petitioner’s original K-1, filed with
petitioners’ 1996 return, does not show that there was an
allocation of income; it included only an allocation of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011