- 10 - facts now postulated, it seems unlikely that the presentation of information in petitioners’ Schedule C is the vehicle they would have selected. Furthermore, the record is devoid of evidence which would lend credence to petitioners’ purported reason for showing $244,270 of gross receipts in the first instance. None of the supposedly erroneous Forms 1099 have been produced. Mr. Aulisio even testified that he simply relied on the word of petitioners’ bookkeeper in determining the total amount, and he claimed to have seen only one Form 1099 representing a small percentage of the sum in question. Significantly, the bookkeeper was not called as a witness, and we cannot assume that his or her testimony would have been favorable to petitioners. In addition, during examination of petitioners’ 1993 return and upon hearing Mr. Aulisio’s explanation at that time, Ms. Nierich checked the IRS records but could find no Forms 1099 issued to the sole proprietorship. In fact, the only documents in the record which petitioners claim support their position are the combined annual reports of LeBouef Company and LeBouef Company, Inc., for 1992 and 1993. These items, however, are of little use to the Court since the balance sheets, income statements, and cashflow statements included therein do not differentiate between the entities in their presentation of financial data. Also, we note that to thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011