- 50 -
of Accu-Data. Consequently, the stockholder loan account asset
reflected on the balance sheets that were contained in the Forms
1120-A and 1120S that Accu-Data filed for relevant years could
not have described a loan from Accu-Data to TPI.35
Based on our review of the record before us, we find that
petitioner has failed to prove that Mr. Morris did not receive a
constructive dividend from Accu-Data during 1989 in the amount of
$11,504. We therefore sustain respondent on that issue.
Statute of Limitations
Petitioner contends that the period of limitations pre-
scribed by section 6501(a), and not the period of limitations
prescribed by section 6501(c), applies to the assessment of a
deficiency against her for 1987 and that that period had expired
prior to the date on which respondent issued the notice for that
year. Petitioner's contention is apparently based on her reading
of section 6501(c)(1) which applies "In the case of a false or
fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax". It is peti-
tioner's position that since she did not intend to evade tax when
she signed the 1987 joint return, section 6501(c)(1) does not
apply to her.
35 We also note that the balance sheet in the Form 1120-A filed
by Accu-Data for the taxable year that ended June 30, 1987,
showed that the stockholder loan account increased from $4,394 to
$7,217 during that year. Assuming arguendo that that asset
related to a loan or loans made by Accu-Data to TPI during 1981
and 1982, it should not have increased during the period July 1,
1986, through June 30, 1987, especially since TPI was dissolved
on Feb. 1. 1986, and Mr. Morris testified that TPI was basically
defunct around 1984 and 1985.
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011