Bruce L. Helmich - Page 6




                                        - 5 -                                         

          claims he did not feel compelled to alert the authorities that he           
          was being extorted because Mr. Vaughan had told him, "don't worry           
          about it.  I'll pay [the tax] when it comes due."  Petitioner               
          claimed he did not amend his return to reflect the income because           
          he did not want to state under the penalty of perjury that he had           
          received the money.                                                         
               At trial, petitioner claimed that the reason he initially              
          told the Internal Revenue Service that he received the money as a           
          bonus was because he had spoken with someone in the Internal                
          Revenue Service who had led him to believe that the Form 1099-              
          MISC was "all the proof the IRS needed", and that petitioner had            
          to explain why he did not pay the taxes on it.  Petitioner                  
          testified that the only explanation he could come up with as to             
          why he should not have to pay taxes on the money was that it was            
          employee compensation, not nonemployee compensation, and that               
          Vaughan should have paid the taxes on it.  Petitioner admitted              
          that he sent respondent the three letters stating that he had               
          received the $10,638 as a bonus.                                            
               After he wrote the letters, petitioner was told by an                  
          accountant that if petitioner had said from the beginning that he           
          did not receive the money, then the Form 1099-MISC would not be             
          proof in and of itself that he received the money, and the burden           
          of persuasion as to the payment of the money would be on                    
          respondent.  After he heard this, petitioner informed respondent            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011