Ridge L. Harlan and Marjory C. Harlan - Page 32




                                       - 32 -                                         
          927-928.  We held that the Commissioner failed to carry the                 
          burden of proving an omission of more than 25 percent of the                
          gross incomes stated in the taxpayers’ tax returns, as follows              
          (id. at 928, 929):                                                          
                    To satisfy his burden in proving the omission,                    
               respondent must show the amount of gross income stated in              
               the return and the amount of income properly includable                
               therein which has been omitted.  Elizabeth Bardwell, 38 T.C.           
               84 (1962), affd. 318 F. 2d 786 (C.A. 10, 1963), and Lois               
               Seltzer, 21 T.C. 398 (1953).  In the instant case respondent           
               has not shown the amount of gross income stated in the                 
               return.  On each of the returns for the years 1958 through             
               1960 there is reported on Schedule H a net loss figure for             
               certain partnership income.  Respondent has not shown                  
               whether a partnership return was filed for those years and             
               if so the gross income reported thereon.  Under section                
               6501(e)(1)(A) the term “gross income from a trade or                   
               business” means the amount received or accrued from the                
               sales of goods or services undiminished by the cost of such            
               goods or services.  Since there is no evidence indicating              
               the manner in which petitioner arrived at the loss figure              
               for income from the partnership, there is nothing in the               
               record to show petitioner’s gross income from the                      
               partnership.  Respondent’s Rev. Rul. 55-415, 1955-1 C.B.               
               412, following his ruling in I.T. 3981, 1949-2 C.B. 78, as             
               to a partner’s gross income for the purpose of section 251             
               of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, provides, and this               
               Court has recognized, that a partnership return is to be               
               considered together with an individual return in determining           
               the total gross income stated in the individual return for             
               the purpose of determining whether the 6-year statute of               
               limitations is applicable.  Jack Rose, 24 T.C. 755, 768-769            
               (1955).  See also Elliott J. Roschuni, 44 T.C. 80 (1965),              
               and Genevieve B. Walker, 46 T.C 630, 637-738 (1966).                   
               [Emphasis added.]                                                      
                    We therefore conclude that respondent has failed to               
               establish that petitioner and Richard omitted from any one             
               of their joint Federal income tax returns for the years                
               1958, 1959, and 1960 an amount of gross income properly                
               includable therein in excess of 25 percent of the amount of            
               gross income stated in such return and therefore respondent            
               has failed to show that the 6-year statute is applicable.              






Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011