Guillo v. Commissioner

1998 T.C. Memo. 40, 75 T.C.M. 1689, 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 40
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 3, 1998
DocketTax Ct. Dkt. No. 24225-95
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1998 T.C. Memo. 40 (Guillo 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
Guillo v. Commissioner, 1998 T.C. Memo. 40, 75 T.C.M. 1689, 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 40 (tax 1998).

Opinion

JOSEPH L. GUILLO, SR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Guillo v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. Dkt. No. 24225-95
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1998-40; 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 40; 75 T.C.M. (CCH) 1689; T.C.M. (RIA) 98040;
February 3, 1998, Filed

*40 An appropriate order and decision for respondent will be entered.

HELD: Respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted, and for 1986 through 1990, petitioner is liable for Federal income and self-employment taxes on unreported income and for additions to tax under secs. 6651 and 6654, I.R.C.

Joseph L. Guillo, Sr., pro se.
Rachael J. Zepeda, for respondent.
SWIFT, JUDGE.

SWIFT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SWIFT, JUDGE: This case is before the Court under Rule 121(b) on respondent's motion for summary judgment as to petitioner's liabilities for Federal income and self-employment taxes on unreported income and for additions to*41 tax under sections 6651 and 6654.

Respondent determined deficiencies and additions to tax with respect to petitioner's Federal income and self-employment taxes, as follows:

Additions to Tax
YearDeficiencySec. 6651(a)(1)Sec. 6654
1986$ 16,505$ 4,126$ 796
198720,0095,0021,080
198817,2344,3091,102
198920,5225,1311,389
199015,8863,9721,045

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All figures are rounded.

When the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Sedona, Arizona.

For 1986 through 1990, petitioner failed to file Federal income tax returns. During audit, respondent reconstructed petitioner's taxable income for the years in issue using the bank deposits method. On October 10, 1995, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency with the above adjustments.

On November 20, 1995, petitioner timely filed a petition for the years in issue. On January 22, 1996, respondent timely filed an answer alleging, among other things, that because petitioner failed to file Federal*42 income tax returns for the years in issue, the period of limitations on assessment had not expired. Petitioner failed to respond to the answer, and on May 21, 1996, this Court granted respondent's motion under Rule 37(c) for entry of an order that the undenied allegations in respondent's answer be deemed admitted.

During discovery, petitioner consistently refused delivery of and failed to respond to respondent's correspondence that was mailed to petitioner. On several occasions, messages, such as "return to sender" or "no such person at this location", were handwritten on the correspondence that was refused by petitioner and returned to respondent.

On October 4, 1996, after confirming petitioner's address with petitioner over the telephone, respondent served on petitioner two copies of requests for admission of factual matter, one by regular first-class mail and one by certified mail. Petitioner did not respond to the requests for admission, and, under Rule 90(c), each factual matter set forth in the requests for admission was deemed admitted.

Based on the above deemed admissions under Rules 37(c) and 90(c), the following facts are established in this case.

During 1986 through 1990, *43 petitioner was married and was self-employed as a chiropractor. For the years in issue, petitioner did not file Federal income tax returns.

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

Related

Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Comm'r
148 T.C. No. 11 (U.S. Tax Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1998 T.C. Memo. 40, 75 T.C.M. 1689, 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guillo-v-commissioner-tax-1998.