- 3 -
return),1 on which respondent treated the above $44,741 shown on
the Form 1099-R as taxable income to petitioner. On July 13,
1995, respondent mailed to petitioner a 30-day letter, Proposed
Individual Income Tax Assessment, treating the $44,741 as taxable
income to petitioner.
On July 27, 1995, in response to the above 30-day letter,
petitioners untimely filed with respondent a Form 1040, U.S.
Individual Income Tax Return, which petitioners purported to be
their 1993 joint Federal income tax return. On such Form 1040,
petitioners reflected petitioner’s receipt of the total $109,737
annuity distribution, but petitioners also treated the total
$109,737 as nontaxable income to petitioner. Also on the Form
1040, petitioners showed no tax due and claimed a refund of
$377.2
On September 17, 1996, respondent mailed to petitioner a
notice of deficiency for 1993, on which respondent determined an
income tax deficiency against petitioner of $9,285 based on the
taxability to petitioner of the $44,741 shown as taxable on the
1 We make no finding as to whether the substitute return
meets the requirements of sec. 6020(b). See McCarthy v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-479 (citing Roat v. Commissioner,
847 F.2d 1379, 1381-1382 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. an Order of this
Court).
2 Petitioners’ Form 1040 for 1993 has not been accepted by
respondent as a valid tax return because, contrary to the Form
1099-R, it reflected no portion of the $109,737 annuity
distribution as taxable income to petitioner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011