- 10 -
disinterested generosity. The bonuses were set by a third person
and based on petitioner’s quality performance and approved by
Drs. Deland and Noell. The facts in this record do not support a
finding that the payments to petitioner were intended as gifts.
See also sec. 102(c); Leschke v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-
18. Accordingly, we hold that the $25,000, $35,000, and $35,000
payments of bonuses constituted gross income that petitioner
failed to report.
Next, we address petitioner’s claim that the normal 3-year
period for assessment had expired prior to respondent’s issuance
of the notice of deficiency for the 1993 and 1994 tax years.
There is agreement that the period for assessment under section
6501 was not extended by written consent of the parties. As of
April 13, 1999, when respondent mailed the notice of deficiency
to petitioner, more than 3 years had elapsed since the filing of
petitioner’s return for 1993 and 1994. Respondent, however,
relies on section 6501(e), which provides for a 6-year period for
assessment, if a taxpayer “omits from gross income an amount
properly includible therein which is in excess of 25 percent of
the amount of gross income stated in the return”.
In that regard, respondent bears the burden of showing the
25-percent omission. We have already decided, based on the
preponderance of the evidence, that the bonuses were includable
in petitioner’s gross income for 1993 and 1994. Petitioner and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011