Gerald Hickman - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         

          through 1988, petitioner worked as a design engineer/draftsman on           
          an independent contractor basis.  During 1986, petitioner worked            
          for Utica Machine, Stellar Engineering, and Bernal Rotary, and              
          from them, respectively, received compensation in the amounts of            
          $18,400, $5,475, and $6,377.  During 1987, petitioner worked for            
          Bernal Rotary and received compensation in the amount of $49,324.           
          And during 1988, petitioner worked for Bernal Rotary and received           
          compensation in the amount of $56,638.  Petitioner did not file             
          Federal income tax returns for 1986 through 1988.                           
               On April 14, 1993, petitioner, pursuant to section 7203, was           
          indicted on three counts of willfully failing to file Federal               
          income tax returns for the tax years 1986 through 1988.  Count              
          one of the Indictment charged that petitioner received gross                
          income in the amount of $30,252 during the 1986 tax year, and by            
          reason of such income petitioner was required to file a Federal             
          income tax return for that year on or before April 15, 1987.                


               3(...continued)                                                        
          Abstract of Judgment" which petitioner submits as proof that he             
          fulfilled all conditions of the U.S. District Court for the                 
          Eastern District of Michigan's order of judgment, including a               
          restitution payment to the Internal Revenue Service. Fed. R.                
          Evid. 401, a rule that applies to this Court under Rule 143(a),             
          Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, provides broadly that            
          evidence is "relevant" if it has "any tendency to make the                  
          existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination           
          of the action more probable or less probable than it would be               
          without the evidence."  We find that Exhibit 7 is relevant and is           
          therefore admissible.  See Estate of Scanlan v. Commissioner,               
          T.C. Memo. 1996-331, affd. without published opinion 116 F.3d               
          1476 (5th Cir 1997).                                                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011