- 3 -
During 1991, petitioner was employed by Appraisal Tech and
the San Jose Mercury News. Petitioner received $2,296 and $7,875
of wages and nonemployee compensation, respectively, from
Appraisal Tech. Petitioner received nonemployee compensation of
$1,987 from the San Jose Mercury News.
During 1993, petitioner was employed by Kushner & Robertson
and received wages of $22,927.
In addition, respondent increased petitioner's income using
amounts determined from statistical data compiled by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. In calculating petitioner's income based on
Bureau of Labor Statistics' data, respondent selected 10 tables
which he believed were representative of petitioner's age, race,
family/earning composition, and geographics. These 10 tables
totaled income of $278,512, which respondent divided by 10 to get
a base income of $27,851 for taxable year 1988. Respondent
increased the 1988 base year amount for inflation to determine
the 1990, 1991, and 1993 Bureau of Labor Statistics income
amounts for petitioner of $30,969, $31,929, and $33,840,
respectively.1
1 Respondent introduced at trial the revenue agent's
workpapers showing how the Bureau of Labor Statistics tables were
used. Petitioner objected because he was not shown the
workpapers prior to their introduction at trial. Because
respondent did not show the workpapers to petitioner 15 days
before trial, as required by the standing pretrial order, the
workpapers were received only to show how the amount in the
statutory notice of deficiency was calculated, not for the truth
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011