- 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 the
Page: 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