Michael T. & Leone Carey - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          reported on each of those returns that their mailing address was            
          3041 Lawrence Road, Redding, California 96002 (Lawrence address).           
          Petitioners lived at the Lawrence address before 1996 with Ms.              
          Carey’s mother but did not live there in 1996 or in any                     
          subsequent year.  In 1996, petitioners had converted the house at           
          the Lawrence address into a care home for disabled adults.  Mr.             
          Carey was the administrator of the care home, which was named               
          Sunshine Residential (Sunshine).                                            
               Respondent’s revenue agent, Gil Akers, was assigned to audit           
          petitioners’ 1995 and 1996 taxable years.  He started auditing              
          those years together but subsequently bifurcated the audit into             
          its separate years.  As to 1996, respondent issued a duplicate              
          notice of deficiency to each petitioner on June 2, 2000.  The               
          notice determined that petitioners were liable for a $442,993               
          deficiency in income tax and a $88,598.60 accuracy-related                  
          penalty under section 6662(a).  The basis of that determination             
          was respondent’s disallowance of $455,224 in business deductions,           
          his $648,443 increase in income stemming from four claimed                  
          trusts, and his $1,066 increase in interest income.1  The claimed           
          trusts were named Home Health Services (Home Health), Residential           
          Management Services (Residential), Rancho Residential Program               


               1 Respondent conceded in his brief that petitioners’                   
          understatement of interest income was $1,065 rather than $1,066.            
          We consider this concession to be immaterial to our decision.               
          Accordingly, we do not require a Rule 155 computation to reflect            
          this concession.                                                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011