- 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