Fred Henry - Page 26




                                        - 26 -                                         

          Notice of Deficiency                                                         
               On September 18, 1996, respondent issued a notice of de-                
          ficiency (notice) to Mr. Henry.  In the notice, respondent                   
          determined that Mr. Henry had failed to report as income (1) for             
          1992 the $150,000 assistance payment that he received from du                
          Pont in that year and (2) for 1994 the $1,623,203 in payments                
          that Mr. Henry received from du Pont during that year.  Respon-              
          dent also determined in the notice that Mr. Henry is liable (1)              
          for additions to tax under 6651(a)(1) for 1992 for failure to                
          file a tax return and for 1994 for failure to file timely his tax            
          return and (2) for 1994 for the accuracy-related penalty under               
          section 6662(a) because of a substantial understatement of income            
          tax under section 6662(b)(2).                                                
                                       OPINION                                         
               Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the determina-              
          tions in the notice are erroneous.  See Rule 142(a); Welch v.                
          Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).                                         
          The $150,000 Assistance Payment                                              
               Petitioner received the $150,000 assistance payment from du             
          Pont in 1992 and did not report that payment as income for that              
          year.  Respondent determined that the $150,000 assistance payment            
          is includible in petitioner's income for 1992.  The parties                  
          stipulated that 70 percent of that payment is allocable to                   
          petitioner and that 30 percent of that payment is allocable to               





Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011