- 21 -
carried on at the Vallejo office, are to be shared equally
between petitioner and the manager of that office. Petitioner
testified, however, that he only shared the profits of the
Vallejo office with the other party to the agreement. There is
no further evidence in the record as to the arrangements
concerning those purported partnerships.
Other circumstances in the record are inconsistent with
petitioners' contention. The BUF accounts were maintained by
Associated only for petitioner, and would be refunded to him
alone upon the termination of his association with that surety.
The full amount of those accounts was available to Associated for
the payment of any liabilities petitioner incurred to Associated.
Associated could draw on the BUF accounts without giving notice
to petitioner. Moreover, the parties stipulated that the accrued
interest on the BUF accounts in issue belonged to petitioner. As
far as Associated was concerned, the BUF accounts were not
jointly owned.
We also note that petitioner's bail bond business is treated
as one or more sole proprietorships, and not partnerships, on his
income tax returns. Statements in tax returns constitute
admissions that may be overcome only by cogent evidence that they
are wrong. Waring v. Commissioner, 412 F.2d 800, 801 (3d Cir.
1969), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1968-126; Mooneyham v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-178; Estate of McGill v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-292. There is nothing in the
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011