William D. Zack - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
                               Additions to Tax1                                      
                                   Sec.           Sec.       Sec.                     
          Year    Deficiency     6653(b)(1)    6653(b)(1)(A)  6661                    
          1985     $45,079        $22,540                    $11,270                  
          1986      62,984                        $112,210    15,746                  
                    1Respondent also determined that the additions to tax under       
               sec. 6653(b)(2) and (b)(1)(B) apply to the deficiencies.               
               Following petitioner’s concession1 and a June 7, 1999, Oral            
          Opinion of this Court that petitioner is collaterally estopped              
          from contesting the applicability of the section 6653(b)                    
          additions to tax on account of his conviction for income tax                
          evasion for the subject years, see sec. 7201, we are left to                
          decide:                                                                     
               1.  Whether petitioner’s income for the respective years in            
          issue should be increased by unreported income of $217,162 and              
          $94,439 from the false invoice scheme described below.  We hold             
          that his unreported income from that scheme was $172,019 and                
          $49,296, respectively.2                                                     


               1 Petitioner has not directed our attention to any evidence            
          (and did not make any arguments on brief) as to respondent’s                
          determination of the additions to tax under sec. 6661.  We                  
          conclude that petitioner has conceded this issue, if, in fact,              
          the Rule 155 computation shows that his income tax understatement           
          is “substantial” within the meaning of sec. 6661(b)(1).  See Rule           
          151(e)(4) and (5); see also Rule 142(a).                                    
               2 Respondent also determined that petitioner's income should           
          be adjusted to reflect adjustments made to his distributive share           
          of income/loss from a partnership; the adjustment stemmed from a            
          tax-evasion scheme other than the one discussed herein.                     
          Petitioner has not contested respondent’s proposed findings of              
          fact as to this determination, and the record clearly supports              
          those proposed findings.  We sustain respondent’s determination             
          as to this adjustment without further discussion.                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011