Arthur B. Crozier - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
               Petitioner did not file a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income            
          Tax Return, for 1991.  Petitioner's failure to file that return             
          was due to willful neglect.                                                 
               During 1991, petitioner received W-2 wage income from                  
          Georgeson in the amount of $54,669 and Form 1099 miscellaneous              
          income from self-employment for services rendered to Newport                
          Electronics, Inc. in the amount of $5,000.  During that year,               
          petitioner also received Form 1099 interest income from (1) U.S.            
          Trust Company in the amount of $13, (2) Baybank Boston N.A. in              
          the amount of $148, (3) The Greater New York Savings Bank in the            
          amount of $348, and (4) The Chase Manhattan Bank N.A. in the                
          amount of $23.                                                              
               For 1991, petitioner is entitled to (1) one personal exemp-            
          tion allowance in the amount of $2,150, (2) the standard deduc-             
          tion in the amount of $2,850, and (3) a deduction for one-half of           
          his 1991 self-employment tax liability, and his filing status is            
          that of a married individual filing a separate return.                      
               On April 24, 1996, respondent attempted to reach petitioner            
          at Georgeson one last time to ascertain the reason for his                  
          unresponsiveness and to inform him of respondent's intention to             
          file the instant motion.  Respondent left a message for peti-               
          tioner with his secretary that informed petitioner that respon-             
          dent had attempted to reach him by telephone and by correspon-              
          dence on several occasions and that he should contact respondent            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011