- 4 - were similar to prior years. For a more detailed explanation as to how petitioner conducted her tutoring activity, see Sexcius v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-310 and Sexcius v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-162.3 Petitioner tutored students for several hours every day after school and also during the summer months and holidays, devoting an average of 33 hours per week to such activity. She charged minimally for her services, allowed customers to pay at their discretion according to their ability to do so, and made little or no effort to collect outstanding account receivables, notwithstanding the substantial losses she incurred repeatedly over several years. Other than the gross receipts reported on Schedule C, petitioner provided little information with respect to the amounts, if any, that she charged or received for her services. She merely indicated that her fees were based upon what she believed the students could pay, whether in cash or other property. To petitioner, the fact that students or their families could or could not pay for her services was secondary to the fact that they needed the assistance that petitioner could provide, and, for that reason, it was not petitioner's practice 3The parties stipulated to the trial transcripts in those prior cases. At trial, the Court advised the parties that such stipulations were being considered an invitation to base findings of fact in this case upon testimony presented in the prior cases. Neither party objected. To petitioner's detriment in this proceeding, there was little if any change to petitioner's methods of operation from one year to the next.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011