Albert M. Graham and Martha A. Graham - Page 22

                                       - 22 -                                         
          thus petitioners claimed an ordinary loss of $672 ($336 x 2) on             
          their 1998 return.                                                          
               Petitioners signed their 1998 return on October 15, 1999.              
          They did not tell Lewellen that he had erroneously reported on              
          that return an ordinary loss from the Anis partnership.                     
          Petitioners’ 1998 return was mailed on October 15, 1999, and                
          received by the Fresno Service Center on October 18, 1999.                  
               Sometime around November 10, 1999, petitioner called                   
          Lewellen and asked him if he had reported “that other income.”              
          Petitioner said there was other income that he needed to report             
          on the return, that he did not know the amount, and that he would           
          get back to Lewellen with the exact amount.  Petitioner had not             
          previously told Lewellen about the other income.  During that               
          phone call, petitioner asked Lewellen to backdate the amended               
          return to Monday, November 8, 1999.  On either the afternoon of             
          petitioner’s phone call to Lewellen or the next day, petitioner             
          called Lewellen’s office and left a message stating the                     
          additional amount of income ($135,422).  A C.P.A. on Lewellen’s             
          staff prepared an amended 1998 return for petitioners on November           
          10, 1998, on which that additional amount of income from                    
          petitioner’s law practice was reported.  She recorded one hour on           
          her billing sheet for preparing petitioners’ 1998 amended return.           
          Lewellen did not bill petitioners for preparing their amended               







Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011