Ilya G. and Sophia K. Margolis - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         

               Further, using the bank deposits method of income                      
          reconstruction, respondent determined that petitioners received             
          additional unreported self-employment income.  Respondent                   
          determined that during 1992 petitioners deposited $42,964 to                
          their bank account.  Gross receipts from Mr. Margolis' business             
          accounted for $12,918 of the deposits, and Mrs. Margolis'                   
          unemployment compensation accounted for $13,621 of the deposits.            
          As for Mrs. Margolis' self-employment income from Leo Art                   
          (separately determined and therefore otherwise taxed), respondent           
          determined that petitioners had deposited only $4,470 to their              
          bank account.  Respondent therefore determined that petitioners             
          had additional unreported self-employment income in the amount of           
          $11,955; i.e., $42,964 less $12,918, $13,621, and $4,470.                   
               Initially, petitioners denied that Mrs. Margolis had                   
          received any self-employment income during the year in issue.               
          Subsequently, but before trial in this case, petitioners                    
          submitted a "corrected" Form 10403 through which they conceded              
          that Mrs. Margolis had received self-employment income in the               
          amount of $14,180 from Leo Arts.  In the corrected return,                  
          however, petitioners claimed that Mrs. Margolis had incurred                
          $6,978 in Schedule C expenses, including an $890 mortgage                   
          interest expense4 and a $4,502 home office expense.                         


          3  The "corrected" Form 1040 was never actually filed with                  
          respondent.                                                                 
          4  At trial it became apparent that petitioners actually                    
          intended to claim a deduction for an interest expense as opposed            
                                                             (continued...)           

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011