Warren R. Ketler - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         

          official record which demonstrates that Stanford University                 
          issued a Form 1099-MISC reporting $28,072 paid to California                
          Barbecue in 1991, using petitioner's mailing address and                    
          petitioner's individual Social Security number as the "Taxpayer             
          Identification Number".  Petitioner subsequently placed in                  
          evidence a "corrected" Form 1099-MISC reflecting payment of the             
          same $28,072 by Stanford University to California Barbecue in               
          1991.  The corrected Form 1099-MISC, however, was sent to "Kaytoo           
          Corporation, D.B.A. California Barbecue".  It also provided a               
          taxpayer identification number that was not petitioner's Social             
          Security number.  Although the postmark on the envelope enclosing           
          this reissued Form 1099-MISC is barely legible, it does establish           
          that the corrected Form was mailed to respondent no earlier than            
          April 27, 1996, after petitioner had filed this case.  At trial,            
          petitioner provided only evasive and irrelevant testimony as to             
          the circumstances surrounding the issuance or reissuance of this            
          Form 1099-MISC.6  Under these circumstances, we are of the                  
          opinion that the reissued document has no probative value in                
          establishing that amounts paid to California Barbecue were paid             
          to a corporation rather than to petitioner as an individual.  To            

               6 For example, petitioner refused to answer questions as to            
          the Stanford University Forms 1099-MISC based upon his Fifth                
          Amendment rights.  It is settled that a taxpayer’s right not to             
          be deprived of property under the Fifth Amendment to the                    
          Constitution is not a defense to collection of taxes.  Nor,                 
          absent a demonstration of a real and appreciable danger of                  
          criminal prosecution, may a taxpayer invoke the Fifth Amendment             
          protections against self-incrimination.  See United States v.               
          Carlson, 617 F.2d 518, 522-523 (9th Cir. 1980); Rowlee v.                   
          Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1122 (1983), and cases cited therein.           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011