- 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