Caralan Trust, et al. - Page 40




                                       - 40 -                                         
               In 1995, Curtis Shirley personally performed computer                  
          consulting services for Ventana.  In December 1995, checks                  
          totaling $2,470 were issued by Ventana for those services, made             
          out to “C.E. Shirley”, which checks were cashed by Curtis E.                
          Shirley.  On brief, respondent states the issue as whether the              
          C. Shirleys understated their 1995 Form 1040 Schedule C                     
          (business) gross receipts by $2,470.  The item in question is an            
          item of gross income, either as compensation for services or as             
          business gross receipts.  See sec. 61(a)(1) and (2).  The                   
          C. Shirleys failed to report it on the C. Shirleys’ 1995 return.            
          The endorsement on the two checks in evidence reads “Curtis E.              
          Shirley”, without any qualification, which is consistent with the           
          named payee:  “C.E. Shirley”.  Notwithstanding some ambiguity as            
          to the identity of the payees (Curtis E. Shirley or the                     
          C E Shirley Trust), we infer from that endorsement that the                 
          checks were payable to Curtis E. Shirley.  We find that he                  
          omitted from gross income $2,470 on account thereof.                        
               B.  Penalties                                                          
                    1.  Section 6662(a)                                               
               Respondent determined a section 6662(a) penalty against the            
          C. Shirleys in language identical to that used with respect to              
          the J. Shirleys, except for the amount of the penalty.  On brief,           
          the C. Shirleys, like the J. Shirleys, fail to address that                 
          penalty.  Our analysis is the same with respect to the                      






Page:  Previous  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011