- 9 -
not accurate. However, the limited amount of petitioner's
testimony that did not consist of shopworn tax protester
arguments supports respondent's determination that petitioner did
in fact receive nonemployee income from Masterguard in 1988. In
his testimony, petitioner admitted that he purchased merchandise
from Masterguard in 1988 and that he might have resold this
merchandise to others. Petitioner acknowledged at trial that
Masterguard may pay rebates and overrides to individuals who
purchase merchandise from it. Petitioner admitted that he is not
an employee of Masterguard, so it would have been appropriate for
Masterguard to characterize the payments it made to petitioner as
nonemployee compensation.
Even if this Court were to find petitioner's dispute
reasonable, section 6201(d) clearly requires that in addition to
asserting a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income
reported on an information return, the taxpayer must have fully
cooperated with the Commissioner before the burden of production
will shift to the Commissioner. The evidence in this case is
unequivocal that petitioner did not fully cooperate with
respondent as required by section 6201(d). First, we note that
petitioner failed to file an income tax return for 1988. As a
nonfiler, petitioner plainly did not bring his dispute over any
item of income to the attention of the IRS within a reasonable
period of time as contemplated by the terms and legislative
history of section 6201(d). Additionally, petitioner's behavior
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011