Faith J. Larsen - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
          gift.6  Petitioner reported the $160,000 payment as income under            
          the category “Services & Other Activities” on her State tax                 
          return and paid the State tax on the additional income.  Mr.                
          Skone, the same accountant who purportedly advised Mr. Pettegrove           
          that the payment was a gift, prepared that return.                          
               Petitioner has failed to establish that the $160,000 payment           
          was a gift.7  Accordingly, we hold that respondent’s                        



               6While petitioner and respondent had approximately 2 years             
          from the time that the petition was filed to the start of trial,            
          both failed to produce relevant information about PCI’s tax                 
          returns that would have been helpful to the Court.  Although the            
          parties stipulated that PCI did not deduct the payment in 2001,             
          the parties did not present evidence regarding which accounting             
          method PCI used.  A donor’s characterization of his action,                 
          however, is not determinative of its tax treatment in the hands             
          of the recipient.  Duberstein v. Commissioner, 363 U.S. 278, 286-           
          288 (1960).                                                                 
               7Petitioner also inaptly argued that the duty of consistency           
          doctrine precludes respondent from asserting that the $160,000              
          payment is income to petitioner.  Petitioner’s argument is                  
          premised upon respondent’s stipulation that the income to                   
          petitioner is either wage income or a gift and that it was not              
          self-employment income.  Petitioner’s counsel suggests that this            
          is inconsistent with PCI’s treatment of the payment because PCI             
          did not pay employment taxes on that payment.  The duty of                  
          consistency doctrine estops a taxpayer from adopting a position             
          in an open year that is inconsistent with a position that the               
          taxpayer took during a different year after the period of                   
          limitations has expired for the earlier year.  Estate of Ashman             
          v. Commissioner, 231 F.3d 541, 543 (9th Cir. 2000), affg. T.C.              
          Memo. 1998-145.  Estoppel and the duty of consistency are to be             
          applied against the Commissioner with the utmost caution and                
          restraint, if at all, and only in compelling situations where the           
          result otherwise would be unwarrantable or unconscionable.                  
          Estate of Emerson v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 612, 617 (1977).                 
          Petitioner’s argument must fail as there is no inconsistent                 
          treatment or position asserted or taken by respondent.                      






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008