- 14 -
determination of a deficiency to the extent attributable to
petitioner’s pro rata share of the income and other items of
Niesar Pahl for 1990.
III. Automobile Allowance
Respondent determined a deficiency based, in part, on her
adjustment increasing petitioners’ gross income on account of the
omission of nonemployee compensation of $6,500 received by
petitioner from Niesar Pahl. Petitioner did receive $6,500 from
Niesar Pahl as an automobile allowance, which amount is reflected
on the Form 1099 issued to petitioner by Niesar Pahl. The
automobile allowance is the nonemployee compensation in question.
Petitioner testified that the automobile allowance is reflected
on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business (Schedule C),
attached to petitioners’ 1990 return. Petitioner’s testimony was
unconvincing. Schedule C states that it relates to “Attorney
Legal Service-Leasing”, and it shows gross receipts of $8,530.
We fail to see the connection between the automobile allowance
and any attorney legal service-leasing business of petitioner’s.
Petitioners’ 1990 return was prepared by a paid tax return
preparer, Clifford Fenske, Jr. Petitioners neither called Mr.
Fenske to testify nor showed that he was unavailable to testify.
Mr. Fenske may have had working papers or other knowledge that
would have explained the nature of the gross receipts of $8,530
reported on Schedule C. We infer from his failure to testify
that his testimony would have been negative to petitioner. McKay
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011