- 69 -
Mr. S.’s testimony also establishes that he abused alcohol during
the periods in which he engaged in transactions with petitioner.
In the final analysis, the record in this case shows that
the examining agent believed that two individuals had informed
him of business dealings with petitioner in 1991 and 1992,
although the majority of his contacts did not support that
contention. There are no checks or other contemporaneous
documentation in the record connecting petitioner to the receipt
of taxable income in those years. The two individuals who
provided the basis for respondent’s assertion of income in those
years both conceded at trial that it is possible that their
business with petitioner had taken place at other times. The
evidence thus only shows that petitioner possibly engaged in an
income-generating activity in 1991 and 1992, not that she
actually did so. The notice of deficiency therefore lacks the
evidentiary support needed to sustain the determination of income
based upon BLS data for 1991 and 1992. Respondent’s
determinations for those 2 years are therefore not sustained.
VII. Whether Petitioner Is Liable for the Addition to Tax Under
Section 6651(f) or, in the Alternative, for the Addition to Tax
Under Section 6651(a), for the Years in Issue
Sections 6011 and 6012 require every individual who has
gross income in excess of certain amounts for a taxable year to
file an income tax return. Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an
addition to tax for failure to file a timely return. The
Page: Previous 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011