Helen M. Korchak - Page 54

                                       - 54 -                                         
          return that $57,750 of the claimed $59,835 investment tax credit            
          was attributable to Madison Recycling and that the claimed                  
          $56,657 business energy investment tax credit was attributable to           
          Madison Recycling.                                                          
               With respect to the claimed $58,089 Madison Recycling loss,            
          we disagree with respondent’s contention that that claimed loss             
          was large enough to put petitioner on notice that further inquiry           
          was warranted to determine whether it was proper.  As discussed             
          above, Statement 2 included with the 1982 joint tax return showed           
          a claimed loss from the Kelly-Brock Drilling Partners 1981-1                
          partnership that was greater than the claimed $58,089 Madison               
          Recycling loss and a claimed loss from the Odessey Partners 81              
          Limited partnership that was approximately equal to the claimed             
          $58,089 Madison Recycling loss.  We have found that the amount of           
          the claimed $58,089 Madison Recycling loss would not have made              
          that claimed loss stand out in relationship to the other partner-           
          ship losses claimed in Statement 2.                                         
               Even if, as respondent argues, both the claimed $58,089                
          Madison Recycling loss and the claimed Madison Recycling credits            
          of $114,407 had been “clearly set forth in a schedule attached to           
          the return”, as discussed above, at the time petitioner signed              
          the 1982 joint tax return she must have had sufficient knowledge            
          of the circumstances of the transactions in which Madison Recy-             
          cling engaged that resulted in the understatement in that return            






Page:  Previous  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011