Devery W. Hennard - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
               The facts in this case have been established by the Court’s            
          Order of March 10, 2005.1  At the time of filing the petition,              
          petitioner resided in Fort Worth, Texas.                                    
               Petitioner worked as a contractor for Tuttle Roofing during            
          the 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 taxable years.  Tuttle roofing               
          paid petitioner $133,339 during 1998, $88,450 during 1999,                  
          $117,905 during 2000, and $137,000 during 2001.  Petitioner also            
          earned $96 in savings bond interest from Nationsbank in 1998.               
          Petitioner did not make estimated tax payments, have tax                    
          withheld, or file a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,           
          for any of the taxable years 1998, 1999, 2000, or 2001.                     
               On April 19, 2004, respondent prepared, pursuant to section            
          6020(b), four substitute returns for petitioner after petitioner            
          failed to comply with respondent’s requests to file returns for             
          the four years in issue.  On June 18, 2004, respondent mailed to            
          petitioner at his last known address, 1216 Warden Street, Fort              
          Worth, Texas 76126, four statutory notices of deficiency                    
          asserting deficiencies and additions to tax under sections                  

               1 On Jan. 25, 2005, respondent filed a Motion to Show Cause            
          Why Proposed Facts in Evidence Should Not be Admitted as                    
          Established pursuant to Rule 91(f).  On Jan. 27, 2005, we granted           
          respondent’s motion and further ordered petitioner to file a                
          response in compliance with Rule 91(f)(2) or respondent’s                   
          proposed stipulations would be deemed established and an order              
          would be entered pursuant to Rule 91(f)(3).  Petitioner never               
          responded to our order, and we, accordingly, ordered the facts              
          deemed established on Mar. 10, 2005.                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011