- 10 - other taxpayers. Instead, petitioner completely failed to demonstrate that the copayees reported the interest income on their Federal income tax returns. Furthermore, the evidence in the record leaves no doubt that petitioner exercised dominion and control over such interest income when he deposited the amounts received from the redemption of the tax certificates into his own bank account. Items over which a taxpayer has dominion and control are attributable to him and must therefore be included in income. See Hernandez I. The petition in this case was filed on November 16, 1998, after the opinions in Hernandez I and Hernandez II had been issued. Because of his professional training and business experience, petitioner either knew or should have known that the income in dispute was includable in gross income and plainly should not simply have been omitted from petitioner’s tax return. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) as determined by respondent. Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: May 25, 2011