- 11 -
Petitioner received a Form 1099-MISC for the qui tam payment
and expected respondent to audit his return. Triggering an audit
by omitting income reported on a Form 1099 is not a good faith
attempt to comply with the tax laws. Petitioner’s claim that he
was merely seeking to test the income tax laws is not credible
because he failed to disclose the payment on his return.
Petitioner contends that the language in Eisner v. Macomber,
supra, to the effect that income includes only proceeds from
labor or capital, provides substantial authority for his position
that the qui tam payment was not includable in gross income. We
disagree. A taxpayer has substantial authority for his or her
position if the weight of authority in support of the taxpayer’s
position is substantial in relation to the weight of authorities
supporting contrary positions. Antonides v. Commissioner, 91
T.C. 686, 702 (1988), affd. 893 F.2d 656 (4th Cir. 1990). The
description of income in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920),
clearly is inapplicable here. See, e.g., Commissioner v.
Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. at 431; Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U.S.
461 (1940); United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931).
The Supreme Court has limited Eisner v. Macomber, supra, chiefly
to the taxability of stock dividends. See Helvering v.
Griffiths, 318 U.S. 371, 373, 375, 394 (1943). We conclude that
Eisner v. Macomber, supra, is not substantial authority for
petitioner’s position here.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011