- 174 -
negotiations and was the person who arranged and was involved in
many meetings between Ashland and NIOC. We also conclude that
petitioner's relinquishment of part of his Diesel Power stock in
late 1974 does not alter the fact that he earned the 1976 Ashland
commissions that were paid to Diesel Power's name. Accordingly,
the portion of Ashland's 1976 payment attributed to Diesel Power
on the CTC receipts journal was income to petitioner.
C. General Motors
We note a preliminary issue that affects 3 of the years at
issue. The parties have stipulated that GM deposited British
pounds equivalent to $18,146.15 into the Zand FNCB London account
during 1973. Although respondent asserts in a proposed finding
of fact that petitioner failed to include $18,337.08 from GM in
1973 income, respondent has not properly asserted this higher
figure in a timely fashion. This Court has jurisdiction to
determine additional amounts in excess of the amount determined
in the notice of deficiency only "if claim therefor is asserted
by the Secretary at or before the hearing". Sec. 6214(a).
Respondent neither asserted this increased amount in an amended
answer nor raised it at trial. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over
the amount in excess of the amount determined in the notice of
deficiency and will disregard such excess. Jasionowski v.
Commissioner, 66 T.C. 312, 317 (1976). In addition, the Court's
consideration of respondent's assertion of the increased amount
Page: Previous 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011