- 3 -
than respondent determined, and that respondent failed to prove
that his costs of goods sold were less than respondent
determined.
3. Whether petitioner may deduct a larger amount for
business expenses than respondent allowed for each year in issue.
We hold that he may not.
4. Whether petitioner is liable for fraud under section
6663(a) for 1993-95. We hold that he is not because respondent
did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner’s
gross receipts exceeded his costs of goods sold for any of the
years in issue.
5. Whether petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related
penalty under section 6662 for 1993-95. We hold that he is.
6. Whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax
under section 6654 for failure to pay estimated tax for 1993 and
1994. We hold that we lack jurisdiction to decide this issue
because petitioner filed returns for 1993 and 1994.
7. Whether the statute of limitations bars assessment of
tax for 1993. We hold that it does not because respondent proved
by a preponderance of the evidence that the 6-year period to
assess tax applies. Sec. 6501(3)(1)(A).
Unless otherwise specified, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code as amended, and Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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