- 18 -
approximately equal to the amounts of his extras for that year,
but he did not look at either his personal return or HRDC’s
return before signing them.
The entire record does not support petitioners’ claim that
the extras were in lieu of rental income from HRDC. Mr.
Gunderson was not instructed on the issue when he prepared the
returns. He was not aware that extras existed until a few days
before trial. Mr. Payne did not look at his returns before they
were filed and was unclear and uncertain in his testimony
regarding what he understood when he signed the returns. The
extras Mr. Payne received in 1994 amounted to $45,060.50, almost
double the amount of rental income reported on petitioners’ 1994
personal return. In addition, HRDC did not report the extras as
income. Respondent properly reduced petitioners’ income by the
reported rental amounts, and neither HRDC nor petitioners are
entitled to claim deductions for rent paid (or the value of the
extras) in excess of those claimed on HRDC’s returns for 1993,
1994, and 1995.
Petitioners also argue that because the Money Exchange
charged a 2.5-percent fee each time they cashed a check there,
they are entitled to a deduction of 2.5 percent of Mr. Payne’s
extras. We disagree. The record shows that the Money Exchange
did charge 2.5 percent of the value of each check cashed as a
fee. However, in order to claim a deduction, the fees must be
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011