Edwards v. Commissioner

1995 T.C. Memo. 77, 69 T.C.M. 1926, 1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 78
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 16, 1995
DocketDocket No. 3598-93
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 T.C. Memo. 77 (Edwards v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Edwards v. Commissioner, 1995 T.C. Memo. 77, 69 T.C.M. 1926, 1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 78 (tax 1995).

Opinion

PETER G. EDWARDS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Edwards v. Commissioner
Docket No. 3598-93
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1995-77; 1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 78; 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1926;
February 16, 1995, Filed

*78 Decision will be entered for respondent.

Peter G. Edwards, pro se.
For respondent: Josh Ungerman.
WRIGHT

WRIGHT

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

WRIGHT, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioners 1987 and 1988 Federal income tax as follows:

Additions to Tax 
YearDeficiencySec. 6653(b)(1)(A)Sec. 6653(b)(1)(B)Sec. 6661
1987$ 19,473$ 14,60550 percent of$ 4,868
the interest
due on $ 19,480
Sec. 6653(b)(1) 
198832,672  $ 24,504-0-  8,168  

Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect during the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

After concessions, the sole issue for our consideration is whether petitioner is subject to additions to tax for fraud under section 6653(b)(1)(A) and (B) for taxable year 1987, and under section 6653(b)(1) for taxable year 1988. We hold that he is.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Oldsmar, *79 Florida.

Petitioner is a graduate of the University of Houston. During taxable years 1987 and 1988, petitioner was employed by Variety Seafoods, Inc. (Variety), as its vice president of sales and marketing. Variety is a shrimp processor and packer. Petitioner was also a 50-percent partner in R & L Seafoods (R & L) during the years at issue. R & L is a seafood broker. During 1987 and 1988, Variety paid R & L a brokerage commission.

As part of his compensation, Variety paid petitioner quarterly bonuses. On April 30, 1987, petitioner executed a memorandum to the president of Variety requesting that the bonus payments be made directly to R & L instead of to petitioner. Following the execution of the memorandum, Variety paid the bonuses to R & L, and R & L issued checks to petitioner in the amount of his distributive share of the bonuses. Petitioner omitted from gross income the entire amount of the bonuses received subsequent to the issuance of the memorandum. The amounts omitted from gross income for taxable years 1987 and 1988 are $ 16,808 and $ 39,764, respectively. Petitioner also omitted an additional $ 892.29 of income received from R & L during 1987. Further, petitioner*80 failed to report income from the following additional sources during 1987 and 1988:

SourceAmount.
Mesa Brokerage$ 18,783.88
Rymer Shrimp2,272.00
Sun Bank of Tampa143.00
Merrill Lynch12,965.00
Total  $ 34,163.88

On Schedule C, for taxable years 1987 and 1988, petitioner claimed deductions in the amounts of $ 32,315 and $ 35,285, respectively. Of these amounts, respondent disallowed $ 27,315 and $ 30,285, 1 respectively. The disallowed amounts are composed of deductions claimed for personal expenses, expenses incurred in years other than the years at issue, items deducted twice on petitioner's income tax returns, and expenses incurred that were also reimbursed by Variety, petitioner's employer. Additionally, in support of his Schedule C expenses for 1987 and 1988, petitioner submitted several altered documents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Spies v. United States
317 U.S. 492 (Supreme Court, 1943)
George C. McGee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
519 F.2d 1121 (Fifth Circuit, 1975)
Joseph Solomon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
732 F.2d 1459 (Sixth Circuit, 1984)
Mitchell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
118 F.2d 308 (Fifth Circuit, 1941)
Clayton v. Commissioner
102 T.C. No. 25 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
Otsuki v. Commissioner
53 T.C. 96 (U.S. Tax Court, 1969)
Beaver v. Commissioner
55 T.C. 85 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Stone v. Commissioner
56 T.C. 213 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Hicks Co. v. Commissioner
56 T.C. 982 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
McGee v. Commissioner
61 T.C. No. 27 (U.S. Tax Court, 1973)
Rowlee v. Commissioner
80 T.C. No. 61 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Hebrank v. Commissioner
81 T.C. No. 36 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1995 T.C. Memo. 77, 69 T.C.M. 1926, 1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-commissioner-tax-1995.