- 15 -
rejected tax protester arguments of this sort. See, e.g., United
States v. Hanson, supra at 945; United States v. Studley, supra
at 937.
Petitioner also conducted a tax return preparation and tax
counseling business from 1984 through 1986. Petitioner advised
his clients to file Federal income tax returns claiming the same
foreign earned income exclusion that petitioner claimed on his
returns. None of petitioner's clients actually worked or resided
outside the United States at any time during 1984, 1985, or 1986.
Petitioner received fees of $1,800 in 1984, $6,190 in 1985, and
$12,790 in 1986.5 Petitioner failed to report these fees as
income on his 1984 and 1985 income tax returns, and he has not
yet filed a return for 1986.
When interviewed by IRS special agents on April 15, 1987,
petitioner stated that he had never received payment from anyone
in exchange for his tax return preparation and counseling
services. Petitioner also informed the agents that he had earned
no income in 1986 and was not required to file a return for the
5In request 15, respondent lists the individuals who paid
petitioner for his tax return preparation and tax counseling
services plus the amount and year of payment. Request 15 asserts
that Barbara Gibson paid petitioner $2,108 in 1985. In request
38, respondent attached a copy of Barbara Gibson's canceled
check, which is dated Mar. 21, 1986, and payable to petitioner in
the amount of $2,108. We, therefore, find that petitioner
received this amount from Barbara Gibson in 1986 rather than
1985. With this adjustment, the amounts listed in request 15
correspond to the amount of tax return preparation fees listed in
the notices of deficiency for 1984, 1985, and 1986.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011