- 4 -
of the consulting services for GMAC.3 Petitioner also contends
that he should be allowed to deduct certain business expenses
that he omitted from his 2003 tax return.
As a general rule, the Commissioner’s determinations in the
notice of deficiency are presumed correct and the burden of
proving an error is on the taxpayer. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).4 Gross income includes
compensation for services and pension income. Sec. 61(a)(1),
(11). Income tax cannot be avoided through an assignment of
income. Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930).
At trial, petitioner credibly testified that because Ms.
Mulvey had not timely submitted certain taxpayer identification
to GMAC, petitioner agreed he would let GMAC pay him and he would
then forward Ms. Mulvey her share. Petitioner offered as
evidence copies of the invoices that he sent to GMAC on
February 1 and March 1, 2003. The February 1 invoice indicated
that Ms. Mulvey had provided $19,000 in professional services to
GMAC and incurred $282 in reimbursable expenses. The March 1
invoice indicated that Ms. Mulvey had provided $19,000 in
3Ms. Mulvey reported to petitioner when they were both
employed by GMAC. Ms. Mulvey’s position at GMAC was also
eliminated.
4Petitioner does not contend that the burden of proof has
shifted to respondent under sec. 7491(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011