Lee G. Gale - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          Proprietorship), for a “Rental Truck & Equip” business, in which            
          he reported gross receipts or sales of $797,225, cost of goods              
          sold of $925,500, and other expenses of $25,939.  Petitioner                
          derived the $797,225 gross receipts or sales figure from the Form           
          1099-MISC issued to him by United Ready Mixed for settlement                
          proceeds paid in 1992 to the Lurie & Zepeda trust account.  Mr.             
          Binder advised petitioner to report the settlement proceeds as              
          income on his 1992 return to conform with United Ready Mixed’s              
          reporting of the payment on Form 1099-MISC.                                 
               Petitioner’s 1992 return showed a reduction of income for              
          cost of goods sold, which included the full amount of the United            
          Ready Mixed settlement proceeds.  Petitioner treated the deposit            
          of the United Ready Mixed settlement proceeds into Lurie &                  
          Zepeda’s trust account as a “cost of goods sold” on the basis of            
          Mr. Binder’s advice.  Mr. Binder advised petitioner that he was             
          entitled to a “cost of goods sold” reduction for the amount of              
          the settlement proceeds because petitioner had not physically               
          received and did not have access to the proceeds in 1992, which             
          were being held by Lurie & Zepeda pending resolution of its                 
          attorney’s-fee dispute with petitioner.                                     
               Petitioner’s “cost of goods sold” reduction also included an           
          additional $128,275 of other alleged business costs.  The parties           
          agree that petitioner was not entitled to a cost of good sold               
          reduction in any amount because, among other things, petitioner             






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