Walter and Susan Moore - Page 17




                                        -17-                                          
          taxable income of $54,073; tax of $7,889; and Federal income tax            
          withheld of $582,148.  They claimed on that return that they were           
          entitled to a refund of overpaid Federal income tax in the amount           
          of $574,259 ($582,148 - $7,889).                                            
               Attached to the return was a Form 4852, Substitute for Form            
          W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form 1099-R, Distributions From             
          Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs,              
          Insurance Contracts, Etc., on which petitioners reported that CTI           
          had paid petitioner $29,102.05 in wages or compensation.  Also              
          attached to petitioners’ 2002 return were a “Form 4852                      
          Calculation” prepared by The Issacson Law Firm and a “(Form 8275            
          Disclosure Statement) Memorandum of Law” prepared by petitioners’           
          tax return preparer and counsel herein Brian Isaacson (Isaacson).           
          The “Form 4852 Calculation” reported that petitioners had made a            
          $2,127,334.31 negative adjustment to petitioner’s wages as                  
          reported on the 2002 Form W-2 to calculate petitioner’s wages as            
          $29,102.05 ($2,156,436.35 - $2,127,334.31 = $29,102.04).  The               
          memorandum of law (memorandum of law) stated as facts that                  
          petitioner “was granted stock options as part of taxpayer’s                 
          employment contract”, that “taxpayer exercised employee stock               
          options using margin debt secured by the stock exercised”, and              
          that “taxpayer has not risked taxpayer’s own capital in the                 
          transaction”.  The memorandum of law concluded that “Under the              
          facts and circumstances test in Section 1.83(a)(2) [sic], it                







Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007