- 34 -
supra, and Nadine I. Davenport, supra; cf. Elliott J.
Roschuni, supra; Jack Rose, supra.9 [Emphasis added.]
______________
9 See also Harry Landau, 21 T.C. 414 (1953); Norman Rodman, T.C.
Memo. 1973-277; and Vernie S. Belcher, T.C. Memo. 1958-180, where it is
pointed out that a “partner’s share of the gross income on the
partnership returns must be imputed to the individual return.” And that
if the partnership return is not in evidence it is impossible to know
the “gross income stated in the return.” The 6-year limitation does not
apply if disclosure “is made on or with the tax return.” (Emphasis
supplied.) H. Rept. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 107 (1954); S.
Rept. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 143-144 (1954).
[Id. at 592.]
Taking into account the taxpayers’ share of the gross income
shown on their partnership’s information return as having been
shown on the taxpayers’ tax return, we held that the gross income
omitted from the taxpayers’ tax return was less than 25 percent
of the gross income stated on the taxpayers’ tax return. See
Estate of Klein v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. at 588. We concluded
from this that the taxpayer-wife failed to qualify for relief
from joint liability under the law then in effect. See id. at
589. Although we ruled for the Commissioner based on the
language of sections 6013 and 6501, we commented as follows on
the Commissioner’s argument under section 702(c) (Estate of Klein
v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. at 591 & n.6):
As we read the first sentence [of the Finance Committee
report on the 1970 enactment of sec. 6013(e)] we think “the
income reported” by a partner includes his share of the
gross income, as defined in section 6501(e)(1)(A)(i), of the
partnership. Rev. Rul. 55-415, 1955-1 C.B. 412; I.T. 3981,
1949-2 C.B. 78.6
_____________
6 Respondent cites sec. 702(c) and sec. 1.702-1(c)(2), Income Tax
Regs., in support of this position. We note in passing our belief that
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011