Thomas B. Drummond - Page 53

                                       - 53 -                                         
          equal to 25 percent (25-percent limit), rather than 15 percent              
          (15-percent limit), of his self-employment income.37  For 1991,             
          the underpayment of income tax attributable to petitioner's                 
          disallowed SEP deduction resulted from erroneously using the 25-            
          percent limit, rather than the 15-percent limit.                            
                              Erroneous Inclusion of the Gain From the                
                              Sale of the Drawing in Question in                      
                              Petitioner's Self-employment Income for 1989            
                                                                                     
               Based on the information that petitioner provided to Mr.               
          McVeigh, Mr. McVeigh concluded that the gain from the sale of the           
          drawing in question constituted self-employment income, and not             
          long-term capital gain, and that it should be reported in Sched-            
          ule C of petitioner's 1989 return relating to art sales.  We have           
          found that petitioner informed Mr. McVeigh that he sold the                 
          drawing in question during 1989 at a gain and that he intended to           
          continue to purchase and sell drawings in the future.38  We do              
          not know what else petitioner told Mr. McVeigh about the sale of            
          that drawing.  We have found that petitioner did not sell any               
          drawings, artwork, or collectibles after he sold the drawing in             
          question in January 1989, and petitioner testified that, after              
          that sale, he had no intention of continuing to sell drawings.              


          37  See supra note 16.                                                      
          38  Petitioner contradicted Mr. McVeigh's testimony when he                 
          testified that, after the sale of the drawing in question, he did           
          not tell Mr. McVeigh that he intended to continue to sell draw-             
          ings.  We believe and accept Mr. McVeigh's testimony on this                
          point, and not petitioner's.                                                




Page:  Previous  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011