- 3 -
from a general contractor, Model Maintenance, Inc. (Company), and
the Company paid petitioner for the jobs once a month.
Petitioner worked with another individual, Duram McManus, and
petitioner paid Mr. McManus 50 percent of the amount shown on
each check that he received from the Company for the jobs.
During 1991, petitioner received $38,390 from the Company,
inclusive of the amount that he paid to Mr. McManus. The Company
issued petitioner a 1991 Form 1099 showing this amount.
During 1993, petitioner performed no work for the Company.
Mr. McManus performed all of the work, and he received 100
percent of the amounts shown on the checks from the Company for
that year. The Company issued checks payable only to petitioner.
The checks were endorsed on the back as "Pay to the order of
Durham McManus", who ultimately cashed them. During 1993,
petitioner received $7,365 from the Company, inclusive of the
amount paid to Mr. McManus. The Company issued petitioner a 1993
Form 1099 showing this amount.
Petitioner did not file a 1991 or 1993 Federal income tax
return. Petitioner did not make any estimated payments for
either year.
OPINION
Petitioner must prove that respondent's determinations set
forth in the notice of deficiency are incorrect. Rule 142(a);
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Petitioner relies
mainly on his testimony to disprove respondent's determinations.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011