- 38 -
more than $20,5179 in funds from his capital transactions.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that
petitioner had $24,647 royalty income for 1982, instead of the
$14,318 that petitioner reported on his tax return, for an
adjustment of $10,329. However, in calculating petitioner's
omitted Schedule C income in the notice of deficiency, respondent
treated petitioner as having only $10,329 royalty income. These
two determinations clearly are inconsistent. On brief,
respondent changed both of these determinations in petitioner's
favor. In particular, respondent (1) concedes on brief that
petitioner should be treated as having $24,647 of 1982 royalty
income for purposes of determining petitioner's omitted Schedule
C income, and also (2) concedes the entire 1982 royalty income
adjustment. One might argue that respondent clearly was
obligated to change either one of these determinations, but not
both. However, respondent chose to make both changes, and so our
findings embody both of respondent's concessions.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that
$32,452 of petitioner's sources of funds for 1982 came from
loans. On brief, respondent chooses to give petitioner credit
for only $26,500 of loans. The only evidence or explanation
provided for this assertion of a $5,952 increase in petitioner's
unreported Schedule C income is Burns' testimony at trial that
9On brief, at one point (proposed finding 37) respondent
shows this amount as $20,217. However, it is evident that
$20,517 is intended.
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011