- 11 - Norris received a package of information from petitioner’s office consisting of Schedules K-1 and other various schedules in order to prepare petitioner’s individual return, including the schedule prepared by Peat Marwick. Petitioner claims that Peat Marwick characterized a portion of the gain attributable to Hammermill stock transactions as personal gain to petitioner when the gains were actually attributable to the activities of Bilzerian & Mack. Petitioner contends that this was done for the purpose of accommodating the Macks’ tax planning objectives and that he did not consent to participation in this activity.9 As a result, petitioner claims that the $4 million was improperly omitted from the Schedule K-1 for petitioner attached to Bilzerian & Mack’s 1986 Form 1065. Petitioner argues that neither he nor Mr. Norris had any way of knowing that Peat Marwick was characterizing approximately $4 million of gains from Hammermill stock transactions as personal gain to petitioner instead of reporting it on the Schedule K-1 for petitioner. Petitioner further argues that he was involved in several hundred million dollars of financial transactions during 1986, which diminished his ability to recognize that approximately $4 million of taxable income was omitted from the return. 9Petitioner claims that the characterizations of personal gain or gain through Bilzerian & Mack were merely paper entries to accommodate the Macks.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