- 9 -
Petitioner admits to having received the check from State
Farm, and the check is made payable to him. Furthermore, he
admits that he performed services (albeit as he views the matter,
as an employee of W.H.Y.) that generated the issuance of the
payment. Looking at the return itself, it is obvious that some
negotiation occurred between petitioner and the revenue officer
who prepared petitioner’s return. For example, the expenses
deducted on the Schedule C appear to be estimates that could be
based only upon information provided to the revenue officer by
petitioner. Petitioner no doubt had an incentive to sign and
file the return based upon the expense deductions allowed and his
expectation that the liability reported on the return could be
paid through a manageable installment agreement. Nevertheless,
we think it unlikely that petitioner would have agreed to report
on his return any income that he did not consider to be his,3 and
we are not persuaded by his presentation at trial that he did.
The record does not establish that the Federal income tax
liability reported on petitioner’s 1992 return is overstated.
It follows that respondent’s determination to proceed with
collection of that liability should be sustained and we so hold.
3 Although we do not consider the point, we cannot help but
wonder whether, under circumstances such as presented in this
case, sec. 6404(b), which precludes a taxpayer from filing a
claim for abatement for certain Federal taxes, has been rendered
inoperative by the provisions of sec. 6330.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011