- 2 -
After concessions,2 the issues for decision are: (1)
Whether income petitioner reported as a sale of a partnership
interest was really ordinary income in the form of a $15,000
finder's fee paid to petitioner for using his influence to assist
a constituent in procuring a construction loan. We hold it was.3
(2) Whether petitioner is liable for the section 6653(b) fraud
addition to tax for 1978. We hold he is.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulated facts and accompanying exhibits are incorporated
into our findings by this reference. Petitioners resided in
Adamsville, Tennessee, at the time of filing their petition in
this case. Hereinafter, the term "petitioner" refers to Leonard
Ray Blanton.
1(...continued)
effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise
indicated. All dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar,
unless otherwise indicated.
2 On brief, respondent concedes that Betty Blanton qualifies
as an innocent spouse, and therefore she is not liable for any
deficiency for 1978.
3 We note that in Blanton v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 491 (1990),
(Blanton I) we granted partial summary judgment to respondent in
the instant case, holding that petitioner is collaterally
estopped from denying that in 1978 he received income of
$23,334.50 from liquor license sales in violation of the Hobbs
Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1951 (1976). Accordingly, we need only
address whether petitioner received and erroneously reported the
$15,000 loan finder's fee for the taxable year in issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011