- 5 - is not, and, therefore, the period for assessing a deficiency has expired. 2. Whether Eugene A. Beck (Mr. Beck) is liable for the fraud penalty under section 6663(a) for fraudulently understating his income tax on his 1991 Federal income tax return. We hold that he is not, and, therefore, the period for assessing a deficiency has expired. 3. Whether Mr. Beck is liable for the penalty under section 6651(f) for fraudulently failing to file Federal income tax returns for 1992 and 1993.3 We hold that he is not. 4. Whether Mr. Beck received constructive dividends from Beck's Liquors in 1992 and 1993 in the respective amounts of $151,448, and $117,641.4 We hold that he received constructive dividends in lesser amounts to be computed under Rule 155 in accordance with the Court's finding and conclusions. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are 3In the notice of deficiency issued to Mr. Beck for 1992 and 1993, respondent determined that Mr. Beck was liable for the penalty for fraud under sec. 6663(a). In the answer, respondent conceded that Mr. Beck was not liable under sec. 6663(a), but alleged that Mr. Beck was liable under sec. 6651(f). 4In the notice of deficiency issued to Mr. Beck for 1992 and 1993, respondent determined that Mr. Beck failed to report interest income in the respective amounts of $35 and $26. Mr. Beck did not challenge that determination in his petition, and it is not at issue in these cases.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011