- 12 -
individual return, but also to the return of the S corporation,
in determining whether adequate disclosure had been made under
section 6501(e)(1)(A)(ii), regardless of whether the individual
return made reference to the S corporation’s return.
In rejecting this argument and the taxpayer’s reading of
Benderoff, we noted that in cases where we have looked beyond a
taxpayer’s individual return for purposes of determining the
adequacy of disclosure, “without exception, the taxpayer’s
individual income tax return * * * contained some reference to a
separate document from which the omission from income could be
ascertained.” Reuter v. Commissioner, supra (discussing Roschuni
v. Commissioner, 44 T.C. 80 (1965); Rose v. Commissioner, 24 T.C.
755 (1955); and Taylor v. United States, 417 F.2d 991 (5th Cir.
1969), among others). Because the individual return in that case
contained no reference to the S corporation, we did not look
beyond the individual return to determine whether adequate
disclosure had been made.
Because petitioners’ 1995 and 1996 returns made no reference
to the petitioner trusts or the trusts’ returns, we hold,
consistent with Reuter v. Commissioner, supra, that petitioners
may not rely on the trusts’ returns to establish that adequate
disclosure of any item of gross income has been made under
section 6501(e)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the petitioner trusts’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011