Hector Prowse - Page 11

                                       - 10 -                                         
          years showed cash contributions to a church of $10 per week for a           
          total of $460 and $480 for 2002 and 2003, respectively.  With               
          respect to the noncash contributions, petitioner attached                   
          receipts to his 2002 and 2003 tax returns from the Salvation Army           
          dated December 30, 2002, and November 23, 2003, respectively.               
          The receipts listed the items of donated property, assigned a               
          value to each item, and a total for the contribution.  For 2002,            
          the total was $2,900, and, for 2003, the total was $1,925.  The             
          2002 receipt showed that the contribution was received by “Isabel           
          Lopez” and the 2003 receipt showed that the contribution was                
          received by “Patricia Rojas”.  Both receipts were from the                  
          Salvation Army at Astoria, New York.                                        
               Petitioner did not attach to his 2002 and 2003 returns any             
          substantiation of his cash gifts to the church, nor did he                  
          substantiate the gifts during the examination of his returns.               
               Respondent examined petitioner’s 2002 and 2003 tax returns             
          as a result of respondent’s audit of petitioner’s 2001 return.              
          Respondent determined fraud under section 6663 for the 2001 tax             
          year based on the determination that petitioner overstated his              
          Schedule A itemized deductions and falsified documentation to               
          substantiate the claimed deductions.  A petition was filed with             
          this Court, and the Court held in Prowse v. Commissioner, T.C.              
          Memo. 2006-120, that petitioner was liable for an increased                 
          deficiency as well as the civil fraud penalty based on the                  

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