- 20 - have used information from the returns in formulating his request for information from petitioner, but there is no evidence that respondent ever treated the copies "as filed". To the contrary, for example, respondent took the step of filing a substitute return for 1990, pursuant to section 6020(b). We find that petitioner has failed to establish that he filed his 1989 and 1990 tax returns more than 3 years before the date the subject notice of deficiency was issued. Thus, petitioner has failed to prove that respondent's notice of deficiency for 1989 and 1990 is untimely under section 6501(a). II. Returns and Allowances The second issue in this case, the only substantive issue presented, involves certain payments that are reported as "returns and allowances" on the Schedules C filed as part of petitioner's 1989 and 1990 tax returns. As mentioned above, petitioner's Schedules C for 1989 and 1990 report "returns and allowances" of $103,784 and $97,854, respectively. Respondent allowed $53,643 of the amount reported for 1989, consisting of a check drawn by petitioner on January 18, 1989, to Hackett & Co., but disallowed the rest, i.e., $50,141 in 1989 and $97,854 in 1990, on the ground that petitioner had not "establishedPage: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011