- 11 - profit. Petitioner presented no evidence of preparation of tax returns or schedules showing his income for 1982 or 1983. During his divorce proceedings in 1985, petitioner represented that he did not know what his income was, allegedly because of actions by his then wife. Based on his sister’s description of the efforts she made in 1983 to reconstruct the business income and his own assertions in 1985, we do not believe that any seizure of records in 1988 was the cause of petitioner’s inability and failure to report correctly his income and expenses for 1982 or 1983. During the years in issue and in his proposed findings of fact in his brief, petitioner has represented that he conducted SAIC as sole practitioner. Petitioner now contends that the notice of deficiency “is invalid on its face because * * * [he] was not named as a partner in the notice of deficiency”. Petitioner’s argument is based on the alleged treatment of petitioner and Justo as partners for employment tax purposes by the IRS. He contends that the Court does not have jurisdiction because the Commissioner did not issue a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment under section 6226. Regardless of the lack of factual support for petitioner’s argument, section 6226 applies only to partnerships having more than 10 partners. Sec. 6231(a)(1)(B).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011