Leonard Ray Blanton and Betty Blanton - Page 2

                                                - 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.                                                                                

            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