Stanley L. Wade - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          deduct $230,137 as an ordinary and necessary business expense               
          with respect to funds allegedly paid to Profiteer Corp.                     
               For 1984, respondent argues that petitioner failed to file a           
          Federal income tax return, that no period of limitations on                 
          assessment is applicable, and that petitioner has not met his               
          burden of proving that he paid $230,137 to Profiteer Corp. for              
          consulting services.                                                        
               The evidence indicates that petitioners did not file their             
          1984 Federal income tax return in 1988 and that the period of               
          limitations for assessment of tax for 1984 remained open when               
          respondent mailed to petitioner the notice of deficiency for                
          1984.  Therefore, we conclude that for 1984 the period of                   
          limitations does not bar respondent’s assessment of a deficiency            
          for that year.                                                              
               We also conclude that petitioner is not entitled to deduct             
          for 1984 the claimed $230,137 consulting fee allegedly paid to              
          Profiteer Corp.  Petitioner has not adequately substantiated the            
          fact of payment or the nature of the claimed fee.  Petitioner's             
          testimony regarding the claimed fee is contradictory and not                
          credible.                                                                   
               The addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for 1984                  
          applies unless the taxpayer shows that the failure to file an               
          income tax return was due to reasonable cause and not due to                
          willful neglect.  Sec. 6651(a)(1).  Petitioner contends that he             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011