- 22 - "compelling" evidence fails to convince us that the $2.8 million of unreported income from stock sales during 1986 was, in fact, included in the original notice of deficiency. Respondent's five examples are, in general, vague and secondhand reports of income. Both petitioner's allocution and the proffered testimony of petitioner's son Marc Ford reflect that petitioners received $2.8 million in unreported income from stock sales during 1986. Neither petitioner's allocution nor the proffered testimony of petitioner's son Marc Ford, however, demonstrates that the $2.8 million amount is included in the more than $5 million of unreported gains from the sale of that stock determined in the notice of deficiency. Moreover, respondent's response to petitioners' Revised Interrogatory No. 40 fails to explain the apparently inconsistent language found in the file copy of the "30-day letter" dated May 21, 1996. That document stated that, with respect to the adjustments in issue: "These exclude transactions in the names of Ingrid Doorn and Marc Ford, either reported by taxpayers or reported elsewhere (by Marc Ford)." Apparently, respondent now has had second thoughts about that "compelling" evidence and, accordingly, in the motion before us, seeks additional taxes and penalties on the theory that the $2.8 million in stock sale gains was not included in the notice of deficiency.Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011