- 7 -
produced by petitioner is a purported "copy" of his 1991 return
bearing an original signature and date of April 12, 1993.
We note that the information reflected on the purported copy
of petitioner's income tax return submitted to respondent's
Appeals Office on April 15, 1994, corresponds to the information
reflected on the substitute return prepared by the IRS.
Petitioner suggests that this 1991 return was timely filed and
that the IRS used information from the 1991 return in preparing
the substitute return in June 1993. However, we are not
convinced that the information reflected in the substitute return
supports petitioner's argument that he filed a 1991 return prior
to the issuance of the notice of deficiency. The June 9, 1995,
IRS computer record reflecting the substitute return was not
generated when the substitute return was prepared, but rather it
was created in anticipation of trial. Therefore, the
similarities between the amounts reflected in the substitute
return prepared by respondent and the amounts reflected in the
purported copy of petitioner's return do not lead us to conclude
that the 1991 return was filed in 1992 or 1993. It appears
probable that petitioner prepared the purported copy of the 1991
6(...continued)
misspoke with respect to this assertion. Given that he filed a
request for an extension on Apr. 15, 1992, and the purported copy
of his 1991 return reflects a signature and date of Apr. 12,
1993, it seems unlikely that petitioner intended to testify that
he filed the return in 1992. Based upon our discussion, infra,
this apparent misstatement is not determinative but does reflect
a certain amount of confusion and inconsistency by petitioner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011