- 23 -
claimed deductions.12 She did not offer any testimony, receipts,
or canceled checks regarding any of Miroyal’s claimed deductions.
The list she prepared will not suffice as substantiation;
therefore, respondent’s disallowance of the claimed deductions in
1999 is sustained.
Respondent attributed 95 percent of Miroyal’s 1999 income to
petitioner as her distributive share. However, Miroyal’s Form
1065, Schedule K-1 for 1999, which respondent introduced into
evidence, showed that petitioner was only a 50-percent member of
Miroyal during that year. Respondent’s revenue agent apparently
did not distinguish between 1999 and 2000 when testifying that
petitioner held a 95-percent interest in Miroyal. Miroyal’s Form
1065, Schedule K-1 for 2000 reflected this ownership split, and
neither the revenue agent nor respondent presented any other
basis for or facts explaining the revenue agent’s conclusion that
the reported 50-percent membership percentage evidenced by
petitioner’s Form 1065, Schedule K-1 for 1999 was inaccurate.
Thus, respondent’s conflicting evidence presents the Court with a
conundrum.
The filed 1999 Form 1065, Schedule K-1, which was prepared
before petitioner commenced her overt tax protester activities,
12 Miroyal did not designate a tax matters partner for 1999.
In any event, a tax matters partner is necessary only for
partnerships subject to secs. 6221 through 6233. As previously
discussed, Miroyal is not subject to secs. 6221 through 6233.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011