- 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