Michael W. Keller - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
               Petitioner’s 1994 and 1995 tax returns were prepared and               
          signed by Hoyt and listed Laguna as the preparer’s firm.                    
          Petitioner provided Laguna with his Forms W-2, Wage and Tax                 
          Statement, and with information regarding his Schedule A itemized           
          deductions.  However, petitioner did not provide Laguna with any            
          of the information used to prepare the Schedules F.  Laguna also            
          prepared for petitioner a Form 1045, Application for Tentative              
          Refund.                                                                     
               After the returns and the application for refund were                  
          prepared, Laguna forwarded them to petitioner for his review and            
          signature.  Petitioner signed and filed the returns and the                 
          application without having them reviewed by an accountant or                
          attorney outside of the Hoyt organization.                                  
               Petitioner filed his 1994 Federal income tax return on                 
          December 25, 1995.  On an attached Schedule F,5 petitioner                  


               5  This Court has heard numerous Hoyt-related cases.  In the           
          majority of those cases, the issues for decision revolved around            
          partnership losses taken by taxpayers as partners in various                
          Hoyt-operated partnerships.  See, e.g., Mortensen v.                        
          Commissioner, 440 F.3d 375, 387 (6th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo.           
          2004-279; Van Scoten v. Commissioner, 439 F.3d 1243, 1253 (10th             
          Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo. 2004-275; Hansen v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 2004-269; cf. Jaroff v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-           
          276.                                                                        
               Petitioner was a partner in DGE and was issued Schedules K-            
          1, Partner’s Share of Income, Credits, Deductions, Etc., for 1994           
          and 1995.  However, unlike the majority of taxpayers in Hoyt                
          cases, petitioner did not report any partnership items on his               
          returns.  Instead, petitioner reported income and losses on                 
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011