- 27 -
1065 and completely omitting Speck’s address on the Form 1065,
Schedule K-1 attached to National Land Bank’s 2000 Form 1065 in
the context of this case appears to the Court to be deliberately
deceptive and does not, given Mr. McGlothlin’s testimony,
establish two different taxable entities.
b. Krismon Buttes’s $70,000 Check Is Taxable to
Petitioner
Petitioner did not provide any evidence demonstrating an
independence from or a dissociation with Speck or Property
Resources. Speck issued Krismon Buttes an invoice in the amount
of $70,000 for marketing services rendered. Krismon Buttes
issued Speck check No. 1023, which never cleared Krismon Buttes’s
checking account. Subsequently, Krismon Buttes issued check No.
1027 in the amount of $70,000 to Property Resources as a
replacement for check No. 1023. The Court is skeptical that
Speck would provide marketing services worth $70,000 to Krismon
Buttes but, absent a quid pro quo, allow Krismon Buttes to
deliver payment to Property Resources. Petitioner fails to
explain this. Instead, at trial, petitioner asserted a Fifth
Amendment privilege when asked whether she was compensated for
marketing services she provided to Krismon Buttes.
This is an indication that any facts which could have been
presented by her at trial would have been unfavorable to her
position. Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 691 (1989)
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011