Patrick S. Elliott and Donna J. Elliott - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Each set of petitioners, Patrick and Donna Elliott and Larry           
          and Julia Elliott, respectively, was married and filed joint                
          Federal income tax returns for each of the years under                      
          consideration.  All petitioners resided in the State of Texas at            
          the time their petitions were filed.  Patrick and Larry, at all             
          pertinent times, were employees, officers, and shareholders of              
          American Energy Services, Inc. (AES).  Patrick owned 30 percent             
          of the AES stock, and he served as its vice president.  Larry               
          owned 29 percent of the AES stock and he served as its president.           
               Patrick and Larry received Forms W–2, Wage and Tax                     
          Statement, showing wages from AES and reported the amounts as               
          gross income (from wages) on page 1, line 7, of their Federal               
          income tax returns.  Patrick and Larry also received Forms 1099-            
          MISC, Miscellaneous Income, reflecting additional amounts paid to           
          them by AES.  The Form 1099-MISC income was received from AES               
          under its employee reimbursement plan for Patrick and Larry.                
          AES’ reimbursements were made without review of the employee’s              
          expenditures and provided for reimbursement of amounts up to                
          $40,000 annually.  AES did not have an “accountable plan” for               
          reimbursement of travel and business expenses as that term is               



               2(...continued)                                                        
          Accordingly, if petitioners’ procedural attack is unsuccessful,             
          they will not be entitled to deductions.                                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011