- 6 -
attributed to him because he received the interest income as a
nominee. To prevail, petitioner must carry the burden of proving
that such income is not attributable to him or to Mrs. Hernandez.
See Rule 142(a). As in Hernandez I, petitioner has failed to
present such proof.
There is no nominee agreement or other written documentation
that petitioner held the income in question as nominee or agent
for others. The money that petitioner received from the
redemption of tax certificates was deposited in petitioner’s bank
accounts.3 Petitioner has failed to provide any credible
evidence that demonstrates that such money was transferred to any
of the copayees. Petitioner has also failed to provide any
evidence that the copayees reported such interest income on their
Federal income tax returns. None of the copayees testified at
trial. Moreover, petitioner conceded that the interest income
reported on at least one Form 1099, which stated a copayee’s
Social Security number, belonged to him. Petitioner also
testified that he purchased tax certificates intending to give
the interest income to his grandchildren.
3 Since petitioner mentioned at trial that he had books and
records that he had failed to bring with him or to show
respondent previously, we held the record open and permitted the
parties to stipulate the contents of those records. The
stipulation shows that petitioner probably intended to transfer
sums to various relatives. But those persons did not testify in
this case, and we do not have proof that they supplied any of the
funds that petitioner invested, that they actually received
interest income from these investments, or that they reported on
their tax returns any income from petitioner’s investments.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011