- 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 "established
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011