- 24 -
has independent tax significance as it allocated $1,190 of
taxable income to the other reported 50-percent member, Gerald
Ricke, who presumably paid tax on this amount. This is a
substantial indicium that he was in fact a 50-percent member in
1999. Because respondent stipulated Miroyal’s 1999 Form 1065,
through his own Rule 91(f) motion, and also introduced it as
evidence at trial, the Court finds, based on a preponderance of
the evidence, that petitioner’s distributive share of Miroyal’s
income for 1999 was 50 percent of $32,116 (i.e., $16,058 of which
$1,190 was reported, leaving an adjustment of $14,868).13
For 2000, respondent allowed Miroyal a deduction for taxes
and licenses of $2,231 as substantiated by the revenue agent via
Miroyal’s canceled checks. On the basis of an examination and
analysis of Miroyal’s bank deposits, the revenue agent determined
that Miroyal had unreported income for 2000 of $57,639.51.
Petitioner introduced no evidence to challenge or refute
respondent’s determination and therefore failed to carry her
burden of proof. Because Miroyal’s filed 2000 Federal tax return
13 Miroyal’s Form 1065, Schedule K-1 for 1999 did not
contain an address or Social Security number. for Gerald Ricke;
however, the Form 1065, Schedule K-1 for 2000 contained a Social
Security number but no address for Gerald Ricke. Utilizing the
supplied taxpayer identification number, respondent’s revenue
agent could have checked Gerald Ricke’s 1999 Federal tax return
to see whether it was filed and whether it properly reported the
$1,190 of allocated income. If not, evidence to that effect
would have supported the revenue agent’s conclusion, but
respondent never claimed this to be the fact.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011