- 21 -21
The failure to obtain the necessary information when filing Form
4868, however, does not lead to the conclusion that petitioner
properly estimated his tax liability. See Arnaiz v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1992-729.
Petitioner knew that he terminated his interest in Heidelberg
& Woodliff as of the end of 1990; he also knew that he did not
receive a Schedule K-1 for 1991 from the firm. Moreover, he was a
partner in the firm when the partnership agreement was amended to
eliminate partner capital contributions upon admission and
liquidating distributions upon retirement. And he should have been
aware that no deduction is allowable for leaving his share of the
law firm's anticipated but not realized income (i.e., the firm's
accounts receivable and work in progress) on the table. See Hort
v. Commissioner, supra.
As to the tax consequences of the distribution from the
Heidelberg & Woodliff salary reduction plan, petitioner claims that
he never received the Form 1099 issued to him reflecting such
distribution. Yet, petitioner never inquired as to why he did not
receive a Form 1099, nor did he inquire as to the status of the
note executed in favor of the plan for the loan proceeds he
borrowed. Even a cursory review of the note would have alerted
petitioner to the fact that his termination from the firm would
cause an acceleration of the debt; moreover, he knew that he was in
default on the note. Additionally, the notice of termination from
Heidelberg & Woodliff states that petitioner is to receive 100
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011