- 6 -
of his stock in Edgington Mullins. Petitioner’s return was
prepared by a professional tax return preparer, but petitioner
acknowledged that he did not inform his tax return preparer that
he sold his stock in Edgington Mullins. The return was signed by
the tax return preparer on August 5, 2002, and by petitioner on
August 10, 2002, but was not received by the Internal Revenue
Service until November 2, 2002.
By notice of deficiency dated December 22, 2003, respondent
determined a deficiency of $6,532, as well as an addition to tax
for filing a delinquent return under section 6651(a)(1) and an
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). Respondent
determined the deficiency based upon petitioner’s receiving
unreported income reflected on the Schedule K-1. At trial,
respondent conceded that petitioner sold his stock in Edgington
Mullins during 2001 and is responsible for only a pro rata share
of the items of income and deductions reported on the Schedule K-
1. Respondent, however, asserts that petitioner received
unreported capital gains from the sale of his Edgington Mullins
stock, and this new issue was tried by the consent of the
parties. See Rule 41(b).
Discussion
In general, the Commissioner’s determinations set forth in a
notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears
the burden of showing that the determinations are in error. Rule
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011