Spencer Medical Associates, Automotive Ventures, Inc. f/k/a Spencer Toyota, Inc., Tax Matters Partner - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
               The second element exists when a taxpayer files a return               
          that contains an inadequately disclosed item and respondent                 
          accepts that return and allows the period of limitations to                 
          expire without an audit of that return.  Id.; Mayfair Minerals,             
          Inc. v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 82, 88 (1971), affd. per curiam 456           
          F.2d 622 (5th Cir. 1972); see Hughes & Luce, L.L.P. v.                      
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-559, affd. on another issue 70 F.3d           
          16 (5th Cir. 1995).                                                         
               Spencer Medical indisputably did not provide sufficient                
          facts to give the IRS actual knowledge of the 1983 Coral                    
          contract.  Spencer Medical's 1983 return did not disclose that              
          the claimed research expense arose out of a promissory note or              
          out of a transaction with Coral.  The transaction was not                   
          examined in any prior examination of Spencer Medical.  Compare              
          Erickson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-97; Gmelin v.                     
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-338, affd. without published                  
          opinion 891 F.2d 280 (3d Cir. 1989).                                        
               Petitioner argues, however, that the project list that was             
          discovered by Gibb in February 1987 provided the IRS with a                 
          reason to know on or before April 15, 1987, that Spencer Medical            
          invested in Coral in 1983 and claimed erroneous expenses.  In               
          addition, petitioner argues that the IRS had the capabilities to            
          identify the necessary information regarding the clients on the             
          project list by using the IRS computer data bases.  (Proffered              
          expert testimony on this subject was excluded because petitioner            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011