T.C. Memo. 1995-463
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
BRUNO AND FRANCESCA TABBI, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 15863-93. Filed September 28, 1995.
Gerald J. Carnago, for petitioners.
Dennis G. Driscoll, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COLVIN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in
petitioners' Federal income tax and additions to tax as follows:
- 2 -
Additions to Tax
Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec.
Year Deficiency 6651(a)(1) 6653(a)(1)(A) 6653(a)(1)(B) 6661
1
1987 $108,314 $79 $232 $27,078
2
1988 66,102 -- 3,305 -- 16,526
1989 36,411 8,695 -- -- --
Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec.
Year 6653(b)(1)(A) 6653(b)(1)(B) 6653(b) 6662 6663
3
1987 $77,762 -- -- --
1988 -- -- $49,576 -- --
1989 -- -- -- $2,304 $19,012
1
Fifty percent of the interest due on $4,632.
2
Sec. 6653(a)(1) for 1988.
3
Fifty percent of the interest due on $103,682.
After concessions, the issues for decision are:
(1) Whether petitioners had unreported income of $47,068
for 1987, $87,711 for 1988, and $30,475 for 1989. We hold that
they did, except as discussed below.
(2) Whether petitioners' unreported income is subject to
self-employment tax for 1987, 1988, and 1989. We hold that it
is, except as conceded by respondent.
(3) Whether petitioners had unreported income of $25,518
from the sale of their residence in 1988. We hold that they did.
(4) Whether petitioners' gains and losses from the sale of
real property in 1987, 1988, and 1989 were capital or ordinary.
We hold that they were ordinary.
(5) Whether petitioners had unreported capital gains of
$2,500 from the sale of their interest in Bagnasco-Tabbi Funeral
Home. We hold that they did.
- 3 -
(6) Whether petitioners had unreported interest income of
$709 for 1987, $306 for 1988, and $379 for 1989. We hold that
they did.
(7) Whether petitioners may deduct advertising, rent,
office expenses, utilities and telephone, commissions, supplies,
licenses and fees, dues, rental maintenance, and insurance
expenses in excess of the amounts allowed by respondent. We hold
that they may not, except as discussed below.
(8) Whether petitioners may carry forward a net operating
loss of $1,008 for 1988. We hold that they may not.
(9) Whether petitioner Bruno Tabbi is liable for the
addition to tax for fraud under section 6653(b) for 1988 and the
fraud penalty under section 6663 for 1989. We hold that he is
not.
(10) Whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax
for: (a) Negligence under section 6653(a) for 1987 and, in the
alternative to fraud, for 1988 and the negligence penalty under
section 6662 for 1989; (b) substantial understatement of income
tax under section 6661 for 1987 and 1988; and (c) late filing
under section 6651(a)(1) for 1987 and, in the alternative to
fraud, for 1989. We hold that they are liable for the additions
to tax for negligence and substantial understatement of tax for
1987 and 1988, the negligence penalty for 1989, and the addition
to tax for late filing for 1987, but that they are not liable for
the addition to tax for late filing for 1989.
- 4 -
(11) Whether petitioner Francesca Tabbi qualifies as an
innocent spouse under section 6013(e). We hold that she does
not.
Respondent concedes that petitioners are not liable for the
addition to tax for fraud for 1987, and that petitioner Francesca
Tabbi is not liable for the addition to tax for fraud for 1988
and 1989.
References to petitioner husband are to Bruno Tabbi.
References to petitioner wife are to Francesca (or Frances P.)
Tabbi. Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years in issue. Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
1. Petitioners
Petitioners resided in Clinton Township, Michigan, when they
filed the petition.
Petitioner wife worked as a secretary for her father,
Salvatore LoChirco (LoChirco), at Oliver Homes, Inc. (Oliver
Homes), from 1978 to 1988. She did not work in petitioner
husband's office and was not involved in his real estate
business.
Petitioners had two children born before 1988. Petitioners'
son Antonino was born in September 1988 with severe heart
problems that led to his death in August 1990. Petitioner wife
- 5 -
spent most of the time after Antonino was born caring for him and
petitioners' two older children. Antonino was in the hospital
frequently from September 1988 to April 1990. He had heart
surgery in April 1990, and was hospitalized until late July.
Petitioners were at the hospital with him continuously during
these 4 months. Antonino died 10 days after he was discharged
from the hospital.
2. Petitioner Husband's Real Estate Activities
Petitioner husband was a real estate broker from 1974 to
1989. Petitioners owned rental properties and investment real
estate in 1987, 1988, and 1989.
Petitioner husband was also in the business of buying and
selling homes through his company, Americana Investment Corp.
(Americana). Because of changes in the Detroit real estate
market in 1986 and 1987, petitioner husband could not sell as
many houses in the years in issue as he had previously.
Petitioner husband rented the houses until he could sell them,
and made repairs that were necessary to keep the houses in
saleable condition.
Petitioner husband conducted his real estate activities
through several business entities. His business operations were
disorganized. He did not keep good records. He intermingled
assets and funds between his many business and personal bank
accounts, and he was thinly capitalized and overextended in
credit. Because of his disorganization and lack of records, he
- 6 -
did not know and could not accurately reconstruct his income for
the years in issue.
a. 1987
In 1987, petitioner husband owned and was president of
Americana, a Michigan corporation that used investments to buy
certificates of deposit (CD's) and then borrow against them. He
used the loan proceeds to buy, sell, and manage residential real
estate for investors. Many of Americana's investors were friends
and relatives of petitioner husband's family. Americana promised
its investors a high rate (i.e., 17 percent) of return. It
reported gross sales of homes of $140,718.05 and a $31,149.26
loss for 1987. Americana went out of business in 1987.
In 1987, petitioner husband was a real estate broker and
operated rental properties for B.R. Tabbi, Inc., d.b.a. Earl Kiem
Realty Bell/Shores Realty, Inc., a Michigan corporation; BRT
Mortgage Co. (BRT); and Canta Building Co. (Canta). Petitioner
husband was president of Earl Kiem Realty. He sold $116,595 of
real property in 1987.
b. 1988
Petitioner husband was a real estate broker and operated
rental properties for Canta in 1988. He sold $27,847 of real
property in 1988.
c. 1989
Petitioner husband was a real estate broker and operated
rental properties in 1989 for Canta, Premiere Financial Services
- 7 -
(Premiere), Homeowners Direct Co. (Homeowners), and La Terra Real
Estate (La Terra), d.b.a. Soldi Real Estate Co. (Soldi).
La Terra was a Michigan corporation owned by petitioner husband,
Anthony Duronio, and Joseph Ancona. Petitioner husband owned
one-third of La Terra's stock. La Terra's shareholders and
nonshareholder employees earned commissions from real estate
sales. Each salesperson contributed his or her share of expenses
to La Terra. LaTerra's shareholders did not share equally in La
Terra's income and were not paid for being shareholders or
officers. La Terra leased an office at 38600 Van Dyke, Sterling
Heights, Michigan.
On February 7, 1989, petitioner husband incorporated
Premiere in Nevada. Petitioner husband was the president of
Premiere.
On April 7, 1989, petitioner husband incorporated Canta in
Delaware. Petitioner husband was the president, and petitioner
wife was the secretary of Canta.
Petitioner husband sold $42,400 of real property in 1989.
3. Petitioner Husband's Bankruptcy
On December 2, 1987, petitioner husband filed for bankruptcy
under chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Petitioner husband was granted a discharge under chapter 7 on
March 9, 1988. Petitioner husband's creditors pressed him for
payment, both before and after his discharge in bankruptcy.
- 8 -
4. Americana
Before and during the years in issue, petitioner husband
transferred real estate without consideration from petitioners to
Americana, and from Americana to petitioners. During the years
in issue, petitioner husband deposited rental and installment
sales income from real estate owned by Americana to the Earl Kiem
Bell/Shores escrow account, which petitioner husband controlled.
In 1987, petitioner husband transferred $9,800 to
Americana's account. Petitioner husband liquidated Americana in
1987. At that time, he distributed its assets, including
financial investments and real estate to himself and assumed its
liabilities. In 1987, petitioners paid various expenses relating
to real estate owned by petitioners and/or Americana.
From 1987 to 1989, petitioner husband obtained second
mortgages on, and rented, real properties owned by petitioners
and/or Americana. At the same time, he sold parcels of real
estate that were owned by petitioners and/or Americana in 1987,
1988, and 1989. He sold five houses in 1987, three in 1988, and
two in 1989. Also in those years, petitioner husband used funds
invested in Americana to buy real estate for Americana.
Petitioners earned interest of $259 in 1987, $306 in 1988,
and $379 in 1989.
- 9 -
5. Petitioners' Bank Accounts and Investments
a. Overview
Petitioner husband used the following personal and corporate
bank accounts in the years at issue:
Account Bank 1987 1988 1989
Frances P. Tabbi Comerica X X
Frances P. Tabbi Comerica X X
Frances P. Tabbi Comerica X
Frances P. Tabbi or Comerica X
Bruno Tabbi ITF
Bruno Tabbi, Jr.
Frances Tabbi ITF Comerica X
Bruno Tabbi, Jr. &
Paulette M. Tabbi
Bruno Tabbi First State Bank X
Canta Manufacturers X X X
Canta Wilmington Trust X
(a Delaware bank)
Earl Kiem Realty First State Bank X
escrow
BRT First State Bank X
Americana First State Bank X
Premiere First Interstate X
(a Nevada bank)
Homeowners Manufacturers X
b. 1987
Petitioner husband signed the signature card for the BRT
account. He was listed as president and petitioner wife was
- 10 -
listed as secretary of Americana on its account. Petitioner
husband signed petitioner wife's name on the signature card for
the Americana account. Petitioner husband used his Social
Security number on the BRT and Canta business accounts for the
years in issue.
Petitioner husband deposited the following amounts in 1987:
Account Type of Income Amount
Petitioner wife commissions $3,534.74
Petitioner wife other 4,500.00
BRT commissions 34,103.96
BRT refunds 724.31
BRT other 3,052.00
Canta commissions 680.00
Canta refunds 133.95
Canta other 462.50
Americana other1 11,502.38
Petitioner husband had $32,598.70 of commissions,2 $858.26
of refund income,3 and $19,517 of other income in 1987.
Petitioners reported income of $29,522 from petitioner husband's
real estate activities for 1987.
Petitioner husband deposited the following amounts in the
Earl Kiem Bell/Shores escrow account in 1987:
1
Americana deposited in its checking account $11,502.38,
reflecting the net proceeds from cashing CD's of $80,002.38, and
replacing them with CD's of $68,500.
2
Petitioner husband deposited $38,318.70 in commissions;
however, we subtracted $4,875 of land contract payments and $845
of transfers between bank accounts in figuring his commission
income for 1987.
3
Petitioner husband received refunds of certain business
expenses, such as insurance and utilities, that he deposited in
his various accounts.
- 11 -
Amount Source of funds
$50,002.78 Americana
30,268.57 sale of real estate owned by
petitioners and/or Americana
7,229.75 petitioner husband's income
1,907.00 installment income from sale of
real estate
2,707.00 Schedule E rental income
3,110.00 petitioners' bank accounts
Total: $95,225.10
Petitioner husband used $53,265.84 from the escrow account
in 1987 to pay petitioners' personal expenses and expenses
relating to various real properties owned by petitioners and/or
Americana.
Petitioner husband made several deposits of currency of more
than $100 in 1987.
Petitioner husband deposited income he earned in 1987 and
1988 in bank accounts in petitioner wife's name. She used these
bank accounts to pay personal and household expenses.
c. 1988
Petitioner husband earned commissions of $14,621.84 in 1988
from the sale of two residences in Rochester, Michigan.
Petitioner husband cashed the two commission checks at the East
Side Market, and deposited the cash. Petitioner husband made
several other large (i.e., more than $1,000) deposits of currency
in 1988.
Petitioner husband deposited the following amounts in 1988:
Account Type of Income Amount
Petitioner wife commissions $7,888.00
Petitioner wife other 4,651.58
Canta commissions 69,242.26
Canta refunds 403.50
- 12 -
Canta other 2,488.30
unknown commissions 14,621.84
Petitioner husband had real estate commissions of $91,752,
refunds of $404, and other income of $7,180 in 1988. Petitioners
reported income of $15,480 from petitioner husband's real estate
activities for 1988.
d. 1989
Petitioner husband deposited his real estate commissions in
the bank accounts of Canta, Premiere, and Homeowners. He
routinely transferred funds between the Canta and Premiere
corporate accounts and the Canta and Homeowners noncorporate
accounts in 1989. Petitioner husband routinely used funds from
the Canta and Premiere corporate accounts to pay petitioners'
personal living expenses.
Petitioner husband deposited $23,425 of Soldi's commission
checks from various title companies in accounts which he
controlled. Soldi had not recorded those payments on its books.
Petitioner husband deposited the following amounts in 1989:
Account Type of Income Amount
Canta commissions $30,285.624
Canta other 150.00
Premiere commissions 25,989.495
4
This includes $12,508 of Soldi's funds petitioner husband
deposited in Canta's Manufacturers account.
5
This includes $3,929.49 of Soldi's funds petitioner
husband deposited in the Premiere account.
- 13 -
Canta II commissions 21,826.426
Canta II refunds 481.05
Homeowners commissions 1,395.00
Petitioner husband deposited no commission checks in
petitioner wife's accounts in 1989. However, he or one of the
other Soldi shareholders wrote checks to petitioner wife on
Soldi's bank account totaling $4,148.29 in 1989.
Petitioner husband had real estate commissions of $79,496
(including $23,425 of Soldi's funds which petitioner husband
deposited in accounts which he controlled), refunds of $481.05,
and other income of $150 in 1989. Petitioners reported that they
had income of $49,652 from petitioner husband's real estate
activities for 1989.
6. Petitioner Husband's Payments to Clients and Investors
On October 16, 1986, petitioner husband was the agent for
Christoforo and Jacqueline Mazzola at a real estate closing on
42407 Jo-Ed, Sterling Heights, Michigan. As their agent, he
received $79,129 at the closing. Petitioner husband deposited
the $79,129 in Americana's bank account. In 1987, petitioner
husband borrowed $42,186 from his parents, Richard and Elvera
Tabbi, to pay the Mazzolas. He paid the Mazzolas (or Olympia
Homes on the Mazzolas' behalf) $46,387 from the Earl Kiem Realty
Bell/Shores escrow account in 1987 and $35,395 from Canta in
1988.
6
This includes $6,988 of Soldi's funds petitioner husband
deposited in Canta's Wilmington Trust account.
- 14 -
Petitioner husband reimbursed investors in Americana for
their investments in 1987, 1988, and 1989. He paid them $3,725
in 1987, $1,800 in 1988, and $6,370 in 1989.
Petitioners refunded a deposit of $1,287 to two former
clients, Robert and Charlene Graham, which they paid for the sale
of a home at 16711 Lincoln, East Detroit, Michigan.
On November 24, 1987, petitioner husband borrowed $8,700
from Comerica Bank to pay investors and business expenses. In
December 1987, petitioner husband borrowed $32,000 from his
parents to pay investors and business expenses.
7. The Bagnasco-Tabbi Funeral Home
Petitioner husband owned an interest in the Madison Funeral
Home Corp., which operated the Bagnasco-Tabbi Funeral Home in
1987. He sold his interest in 1987 for 11 funeral certificates
(worth about $5,000 each) and 30 months of health insurance
(worth $2,500).
8. Petitioners' Residence
Oliver Homes, a Michigan corporation wholly owned by
LoChirco, bought a lot at 200 Tanglewood, Rochester Hills,
Michigan, for $19,500 from Biltmore Properties on December 20,
1977. On January 28, 1985, Oliver Homes conveyed the lot to
petitioner wife. Petitioner wife did not pay for the lot. On
March 4, 1987, petitioner wife conveyed the lot for no charge to
Oliver Homes, and Oliver Homes built a house on the lot. Oliver
Homes then sold the house to petitioner wife for $175,921.
- 15 -
Petitioners lived in the Tanglewood home in 1987 and 1988.
Petitioners spent $15,000 to improve that home while petitioner
wife owned it. On August 2, 1988, petitioner wife sold it for
$237,000. Petitioner wife had sales expenses of $561. Her cost
basis in the house was $210,691.
On February 22, 1989, petitioner wife bought a lot at 41741
Alden, Clinton Township, Michigan, for $35,000. Canta built a
residence on this lot in 1989. Petitioner wife bought the
residence on October 12, 1989, for $160,000.
9. Petitioners' Returns
H & R Block prepared petitioners' 1987 and 1988 returns.
Petitioner husband gave H & R Block various documents to prepare
those returns. For the 1988 Schedule C, he gave H & R Block only
his real estate commission receipts totaling $15,480 as shown on
a Form 1099. He did not give them records of commission checks
that he cashed before depositing, records of corporate payment of
petitioners' personal expenses, or records of commissions
petitioner husband received that were payable to another entity.
Petitioners did not review the returns before signing them.
They did not claim all of their exemptions for 1987.
Gerald Carnago, of Carnago, Neddermeyer & Bringard, prepared
petitioners' 1989 return. Petitioners filed their returns for
1987 on April 25, 1988, for 1988 on September 5, 1989, and for
1989 on October 23, 1990.
- 16 -
Petitioner husband did not keep books and records (other
than checks) for his businesses from 1987 to 1989. He used
accountants to keep his books, balance his checking accounts, and
prepare returns from 1974 to 1986. He could not afford to use
accountants after 1986 because his business declined.
Petitioners reported on their 1988 and 1989 returns that
they owned several real properties that Americana formerly owned:
11420 Nashville, 14509 Mayfield, and 9550 Whittier.
10. Respondent's Examination
Respondent's revenue agents reconstructed petitioners'
income for 1987, 1988, and 1989 using the bank deposits plus
expenditures method. Revenue Agent Martin interviewed petitioner
husband on May 29 and October 23, 1990, and on September 17,
1991. Petitioner husband cooperated with Revenue Agent Martin
and Revenue Agent Andrews' investigation. He gave the agents his
checks, which were his only records of the transactions. He did
not make misleading statements to, or give misleading documents
to, respondent's agents.
The revenue agents identified all bank accounts for which
petitioners had signatory authority during the years in issue,
and obtained signature cards, monthly statements, canceled
checks, deposits slips, and deposit items for these accounts.
The agents analyzed the deposits made to these accounts, and
excluded all deposits that the agents believed were nontaxable,
including transfers between accounts. The agents also obtained
- 17 -
other documents, such as real estate closing statements, to
identify income from real estate commissions, rents, refunds, and
other sources. The agents concluded that petitioners had income
in 1987 from petitioner husband's use of the Earl Kiem
Bell/Shores escrow account to pay petitioners' personal living
expenses.
11. Petitioners' Unreported Income
Petitioners had unreported income of $35,566 in 1987,
$87,711 in 1988, and $30,475 in 1989.
Petitioners had gains from real estate sales of $5,595 for
1987, and losses of $19,759 for 1988 and $832 for 1989. They had
net gains of $5,595 for 1987, and net losses of $19,759 for 1988
and $520 for 1989.
Petitioners underreported their capital loss by $12,080 in
1987 and overreported capital gain by $12,377 in 1988. They had
a net loss of $63,165 in 1987 and a net gain of $474 in 1988,
excluding capital gain from the sale of their interests in the
Bagnasco-Tabbi Funeral Home and Americana.
OPINION
1. Respondent's Use of the Bank Deposits Method
Respondent used the bank deposits plus expenditures method
to determine petitioner's income for the years in issue.7 If a
7
Respondent determined petitioners' income from the escrow
account by computing disbursements as income less any funds
petitioner husband deposited in the account.
- 18 -
taxpayer does not maintain adequate books and records, respondent
may reconstruct a taxpayer's income by any reasonable method
which clearly reflects income. Sec. 446; Holland v. United
States, 348 U.S. 121, 130-132 (1954). The bank deposits method
has long been approved by the courts as a method for computing
income. Estate of Mason v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 651, 656
(1975), affd. 566 F.2d 2 (6th Cir. 1977). Bank deposits are
prima facie evidence of income. Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87
T.C. 74, 77 (1986); Estate of Mason v. Commissioner, supra at
656-657.8
Respondent's determination is presumed to be correct, and
petitioners bear the burden of proving otherwise. Rule 142(a);
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Petitioners must
overcome the presumption as to each item of unreported income in
respondent's deficiency determination. Foster v. Commissioner,
391 F.2d 727, 735 (4th Cir. 1968), affg. in part, revg. in part
on other grounds T.C. Memo. 1965-246.
Petitioners argue that respondent erred in including in
their income for 1987: $11,502 from Americana's bank account,
$23,6159 from petitioner husband's use of the Earl Kiem escrow
8
Respondent concedes that petitioners are not liable for
tax on other income items of $100 for 1987 and $144 for 1988.
9
Respondent calculated that petitioners had taxable income
of $23,615 from their personal use of funds in the Earl Kiem
escrow account as follows:
(continued...)
- 19 -
account, $858 of refunds received by petitioner husband, and
$8,015 of other income.
Petitioners contend that respondent improperly reallocated
income from Americana to petitioners in disregard of section 482
by claiming that Americana was the alter ego of petitioner
husband. Similarly, petitioners argue that respondent improperly
9
(...continued)
Checks written on escrow account:
Checks for personal expenses
and real estate $53,265.84
Checks to/for benefit of Mazzolas 46,387.00
Checks to Charlene Graham 1,287.00
Total checks: 100,939.84
Petitioners' basis in account:
Americana funds
Americana funds deposited to account $50,002.78
Payments to/for Mazzolas 46,387.00
3,615.78
Petitioners' funds
Installment income from real estate
sales $1,907.00
Rental income deposited to account 2,707.00
Transfers 3,110.00
Income from real estate sales 13,788.38
Funds from other sources 7,229.75
28,742.13
Total: 32,357.91
Funds for petitioners' benefit:
Rental income deposited to account $2,707.00
Checks written for petitioners'
benefit 53,265.80
Total: 55,972.80
Taxable income from account:
Funds for petitioners' benefit $55,972.80
Petitioners' basis in account 32,357.91
23,614.89
- 20 -
reallocated income from the Earl Kiem escrow account to
petitioners under section 482. However, respondent did not
reallocate income to petitioners from Americana or the Earl Kiem
escrow account under section 482.
Respondent argues that petitioners are taxable on
Americana's income because petitioner husband improperly
converted Americana's assets to his control and intermingled his
financial affairs with those of Americana such that Americana
became his alter ego. We disagree. Respondent cited no
authority for us to apply the alter ego theory in these
circumstances. We do not apply an alter ego theory to reallocate
income from Americana to petitioners because Americana engaged in
bona fide business activities and was a separate taxable entity.
Jackson v. Commissioner, 233 F.2d 289, 291 (2d Cir. 1956), affg.
24 T.C. 1 (1955); Paymer v. Commissioner, 150 F.2d 334, 336-337
(2d Cir. 1945) (income from property taxed to stockholders,
rather than the corporation, only if the corporation is a dummy
or sham or is used for tax avoidance purposes). As discussed
below infra par. 9, petitioner husband did not fraudulently
divert corporate funds from Americana. Cf. Ruidoso Racing
Association, Inc. v. Commissioner, 476 F.2d 502, 506 (10th Cir.
1973), affg. in part and revg. and remanding in part T.C. Memo.
1971-194; Moore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-275, affd. 619
F.2d 619 (6th Cir. 1980) (corporation's dominant shareholder
fraudulently diverted corporate funds for personal use and so
- 21 -
controlled the corporation that the corporate entity was
destroyed and the corporation became the individual's alter ego).
Thus, we do not include $11,502 from Americana's account in
petitioners' income for 1987.
Petitioners contend that respondent must establish that
Americana and the Earl Kiem escrow account had sufficient
earnings and profits before respondent attributes income (i.e.,
constructive dividends) to petitioners. We disagree. Petitioner
husband controlled the deposits in the Earl Kiem escrow account,
and used those funds to pay petitioners' personal expenses and
petitioners' real property expenses. When a corporation pays a
nondeductible personal expense of its sole shareholder, or
permits a shareholder to use corporate property for a personal
purpose, the shareholder receives a constructive dividend to the
extent the corporation's earnings and profits provide personal
benefit to the shareholder. Secs. 301, 316; Falsetti v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 332, 356-357 (1985); Henry Schwartz Corp.
v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 728, 744 (1973). Petitioners bear the
burden of proving that Americana and the Earl Kiem escrow account
had insufficient earnings and profits to support the constructive
dividend treatment. Hagaman v. Commissioner, 958 F.2d 684, 695
n.16 (6th Cir. 1992), affg. and remanding T.C. Memo. 1987-594;
United States v. Leonard, 524 F.2d 1076, 1083 (2d Cir. 1975);
Truesdell v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1280, 1295-1296 (1987).
Petitioners have not carried their burden.
- 22 -
Petitioners argue that for 1988 respondent erred in
reconstructing their income,10 and in including in income refunds
of $404 and other income of $7,036. For 1989, petitioners argue
that respondent erred in including in income refunds from Lucido
Insurance Agency of $481.05, and as other income a check from
Michael Larco for $150 because it was a loan repayment.
Petitioners have failed to prove that the disputed items for
1987, 1988, and 1989 were nontaxable. Refunds petitioner husband
received are includable in petitioners' income because they were
refunds for various items, such as insurance and utilities, that
petitioner husband deducted as business expenses. Petitioners
have not proved that cash deposits they made, several of which
exceeded $1,000, were from a nontaxable source. Petitioners did
not show that the payment from Larco was repayment of a loan.
Petitioners have failed to prove that respondent erred by
including in income for 1987 petitioners' use of the Earl Kiem
escrow account to pay personal expenses and their real property
expenses of $23,615. Sec. 301; Falsetti v. Commissioner, supra;
Henry Schwartz Corp. v. Commissioner, supra. However, as stated
above, we do not treat funds deposited to Americana's account as
income taxable to petitioners. We sustain respondent's
calculation of petitioners' unreported income for 1987, 1988, and
1989, except for the inclusion of the Americana funds in 1987.
10
Petitioners incorrectly omitted installment sales of
$9,017 from their calculation of their income for 1988.
- 23 -
2. Self-Employment Taxes
Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for self-
employment taxes under section 1401 for 1987, 1988, and 1989.
Section 1401 imposes a tax on a taxpayer's self-employment
income. "Self-employment income" includes the net earnings from
self-employment derived by an individual during the taxable year.
Sec. 1402(b). Net earnings from self-employment income means
gross income, less certain deductions, derived by an individual
from any trade or business carried on by such individual. Sec.
1402(a).
Respondent concedes that petitioners are not liable for
self-employment tax for 1987 on $23,615 attributed to them from
their personal use of Earl Kiem Bell/Shores escrow account funds,
and $11,502 from Americana's bank account.
Petitioners bear the burden of proving that they are not
liable for the taxes imposed by section 1401. Rule 142(a).
Petitioners concede that they are liable for self-employment tax
on their real estate income less business deductions. They
argue, however, that they are not liable for self-employment tax
on other amounts on the theory that they did not receive those
amounts, or if received, that those amounts were nontaxable gifts
or loan repayments. Petitioners also argue that petitioner
husband is not liable for self-employment tax on the income he
earned as a real estate dealer selling and renting houses he held
for sale primarily to customers. Sec. 1402(a)(1).
- 24 -
We held above that petitioners failed to prove that they did
not have unreported income in the amounts asserted by respondent.
They have not proven that they did not receive that income, nor
have they proven that it is not subject to self-employment tax.
Petitioner husband received refunds for items, such as insurance
and utilities, that he deducted as business expenses. The
refunds are includable in petitioners' income and are subject to
self-employment tax.
An individual who is engaged in the business of selling
real estate to customers may be classified as a real estate
dealer. Sec. 1.1402(a)-4(a), Income Tax Regs. Rentals from real
estate and the related deductions are excluded from net earnings
subject to self-employment tax unless the rentals are received in
the course of a taxpayer's trade or business as a real estate
dealer. Sec. 1402(a)(1); Hopper v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 542,
545 (1990); sec. 1.1402(a)-4(a), Income Tax Regs.
Whether property is held by a taxpayer for investment or for
sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business
is a question of fact. Cottle v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 467, 486
(1987); Daugherty v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 623, 628 (1982). As
discussed below, we hold that petitioner husband was a dealer in
real estate. Thus, the rentals are subject to self-employment
tax. Sec. 1402(a)(1); Rockwell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1972-
133, affd. 512 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 1975). Petitioners have failed
- 25 -
to prove that they are not liable for self-employment tax except
as conceded by respondent.
3. Unreported Income From the Sale of Petitioners' Residence
The parties dispute the basis of the lot Oliver Homes gave
to petitioner wife. Respondent contends that the lot has a zero
basis; petitioners contend that the basis of the lot is $19,500,
which was the cost of the lot to Oliver Homes. Taxpayers bear
the burden of proving their basis in the lot. Rule 142(a).
A taxpayer who acquires property by gift takes a basis in
the property equal to the lesser of the donor's basis or the fair
market value. Sec. 1015. Respondent argues that petitioner
wife had no basis in the lot because her father, LoChirco,
misappropriated it from Oliver Homes. Respondent argues that
because transactions within a family group are subject to special
scrutiny, Fitz Gibbon v. Commissioner, 19 T.C. 78, 84 (1952), and
because LoChirco was petitioner wife's father, his failure to pay
Oliver Homes for the lot before Oliver Homes conveyed it to his
daughter should be treated as a constructive dividend to him,
followed by a gift of the lot from him to her. Respondent
asserts that petitioners did not show that LoChirco recognized a
constructive dividend on the transfer of the lot, and that
therefore he had no basis in the lot when Oliver Homes conveyed
it to petitioner wife. Commissioner v. Farren, 82 F.2d 141, 143-
144 (10th Cir. 1936); Crane v. Commissioner, 68 F.2d 640 (1st
Cir. 1934), affg. 27 B.T.A. 360 (1932). Respondent contends
- 26 -
that, under section 1015, petitioner wife had no basis in the
lot.
Petitioners argue that under section 301, a distribution to
LoChirco was taxable to him at the lot's fair market value.
Revenue Agent Rizzardi used $10,000 as LoChirco's basis for the
lot, and concluded that LoChirco realized a constructive dividend
because Oliver Homes built petitioners' home on the lot.
Petitioners contend that petitioner wife's basis in the lot was
the amount Oliver Homes paid for it, namely $19,500, or, in the
alternative, the amount accepted by Agent Rizzardi in his audit
of the LoChircos, $10,000. Petitioners argue that their gain on
the sale of their home should be reduced accordingly.
Petitioners have not proven that LoChirco realized a
constructive dividend when Oliver Homes distributed the lot to
him. See Loftin & Woodard, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1206,
1242 (5th Cir. 1978); Goldstein v. Commissioner, 298 F.2d 562,
566 (9th Cir. 1962), affg. T.C. Memo. 1960-276; Melvin v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 63, 79-80 (1987), affd. per curiam 894 F.2d
1072 (9th Cir. 1990). Also, petitioners have not established the
fair market value of the lot when Oliver Homes distributed it to
LoChirco. Sec. 301(b). We hold that petitioner wife's basis in
the lot was zero.
4. Capital or Ordinary Income and Loss
Petitioners argue that the character of the gains and losses
from petitioner husband's sale of real estate in the years at
- 27 -
issue was ordinary and not capital because he held the real
estate primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of
business. Sec. 1221(1); Suburban Realty Co. v. United States,
615 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir. 1980); Biedenharn Realty Co. v.
United States, 526 F.2d 409, 415 (5th Cir. 1976).
Section 1221(1) excludes from capital asset classification--
stock in trade of the taxpayer or other property of a
kind which would properly be included in the inventory
of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable
year, or property held by the taxpayer primarily for
sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade
or business * * *
The function of section 1221(1) is "to differentiate between
'profits and losses arising from the everyday operation of a
business' * * * and 'the realization of appreciation in value
accrued over a substantial period of time'". Malat v. Riddell,
383 U.S. 569, 572 (1966). "Primarily" means "principally" or "of
first importance". Malat v. Riddell, supra.
Whether property is held by a taxpayer "primarily for sale
to customers in the ordinary course of * * * business" is a
question of fact. S & H, Inc. v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 234, 242
(1982). Courts consider numerous factors in deciding this issue,
and no one factor is controlling. Biedenharn Realty Co. v.
United States, supra at 415. Petitioner bears the burden of
proving that his property was not so held. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
The following factors indicate that petitioner husband held
the houses primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course
- 28 -
of business: (a) The frequency and regularity of sales; (b) the
substantiality of sales; (c) the nature and extent of the
taxpayer's business; (d) the purpose for which the taxpayer
acquired and held the property before sale; (e) the extent of the
taxpayer's sales efforts by advertising or otherwise; and (f) the
extent of improvements to the property made by the taxpayer.
Byram v. United States, 705 F.2d 1418, 1424 (5th Cir. 1983);
United States v. Winthrop, 417 F.2d 905, 910 (5th Cir. 1969);
Ross v. Commissioner, 227 F.2d 265 (5th Cir. 1955), revg. T.C.
Memo. 1954-177; Goldberg v. Commissioner; 223 F.2d 709 (5th Cir.
1955), revg. 22 T.C. 533 (1954); Guardian Indus. Corp. v.
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 308, 316-317 (1991), affd. without
published opinion 21 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 1994).
Before the years at issue, petitioner husband sold
properties regularly and frequently. For example, he sold 16 of
the 17 properties he acquired personally or from Americana in
earlier years. Petitioner husband actively advertised the houses
for sale and made substantial efforts to sell them. See Norris
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-151 (taxpayer's extensive
solicitation and advertising efforts and use of time and energy
for real estate pursuits show that real estate was not held for
investment). Petitioner husband made necessary repairs to keep
the houses in saleable condition. See Norris v. Commissioner,
supra. These factors suggest that petitioner husband held these
houses for sale to customers.
- 29 -
Because of the downturn in the Detroit residential real
estate market in 1987, petitioner husband did not sell as many
houses. He sold five houses for $116,595 in 1987, three for
$27,847 in 1988, and two for $42,400 in 1989. To cut costs, he
rented properties that he did not sell immediately. The rents
paid his carrying costs, such as mortgage payments, utilities,
and property taxes. Cf. Baris v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1965-
182 (gain on sale of rental property held for sale to customers
taxed as ordinary income; rental income deemed incidental).
Under these circumstances, we do not believe the infrequency of
petitioner husband's sales shows that he held the property for
investment rather than for sale. Suburban Realty Co. v. United
States, supra at 174; Biedenharn Realty Co. v. United States,
supra at 411-412; United States v. Winthrop, supra at 907. We
hold that petitioner husband held the houses for sale to
customers.
5. Petitioners' Gains and Losses From Other Investments
Petitioners underreported their capital loss by $12,080 for
a net loss of $63,165 in 1987 and overreported capital gain by
$12,377 for a net gain of $474 in 1988, excluding capital gain
from the sale of their interests in the Bagnasco-Tabbi Funeral
Home and Americana.
Petitioners concede that they had capital gain of $2,500 in
1987 on their receipt of 24 months of medical insurance coverage
for their interest in Bagnasco-Tabbi Funeral Home. Petitioners
- 30 -
argue that they had a $33,809 ordinary loss and a $13,278 capital
loss in 1987 from their investment in Americana. In the
alternative, they argue that they had a $47,087 capital loss in
1987.
Gain or loss upon the disposition of an asset is computed by
comparing the amount received with the taxpayer's basis in the
asset. Secs. 1001, 1011. Petitioners failed to prove their
basis in Americana. Petitioners contend that their total
investment in Americana was $50,702 ($9,800 that petitioner
husband deposited in Americana's account, plus $5,000 paid for
capital stock, $500 loaned to Americana, and $35,402 for amounts
petitioner husband paid the Mazzolas), minus $3,615 credited by
respondent for petitioners' basis in Americana, for a net
investment of $47,087. There is no evidence to support
petitioners' position, e.g., no canceled checks. Their only
evidence of their investment in the corporation was a listing of
$5,000 in capital stock, and loans from stockholders of $499.71
on Americana's 1986 return and $459.99 on its 1987 return. This
evidence is not sufficient to substantiate their basis in
Americana. Cf. Wilkinson v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 633, 639
(1979); Halle v. Commissioner, 7 T.C. 245, 249-250 (1946), affd.
175 F.2d 500 (2d Cir. 1949).
Petitioners claim that they may deduct business interest of
$2,660 for payments to the Mazzolas, and Americana's net
- 31 -
operating loss of $31,149.29 for 1987. They claim $13,277.71 as
a capital loss in 1987.
We disagree. Petitioners are not entitled to basis in
Americana for petitioner husband's deposit of $9,800 into its
account because petitioner husband did not prove that this was a
true investment of funds in Americana; instead, it was an
instance of petitioner husband's moving funds between accounts.
Petitioners did not offer any evidence showing that the $2,660
petitioner husband paid to the Mazzolas was interest. Also,
petitioners have not established the value of the assets they
received from Americana when it liquidated. Petitioners have not
proven the amount of their basis in Americana, or that they may
deduct the business interest or net operating loss in the amounts
claimed. Thus, petitioners may not deduct a capital or ordinary
loss upon Americana's liquidation.
6. Unreported Interest Income
Gross income means all income from whatever source derived,
including dividends and interest. Sec. 61(a).
Petitioners argue that respondent erred in attributing
interest income from Americana's bank account in 1987, 1988, and
1989, to petitioners. They contend that interest earned on
Americana's account went directly into the account and was not
used by petitioners. Petitioners argue that a withdrawal of
funds from a closely held corporation is a dividend to the
recipient-shareholder to the extent of the corporation's
- 32 -
earnings. See Halpern v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-31
(controlling shareholder who diverts income from corporation
receives taxable dividend to the extent of the corporate earnings
and profits). Petitioners argue that Americana had no earnings
or retained earnings in 1986 or 1987, and that therefore the
interest is not income to them.
Petitioners' contention that respondent must show that
Americana had sufficient earnings and profits to reallocate
interest income to petitioners is erroneous. Petitioner husband
acquired ownership of Americana's assets when it liquidated and
went out of business in 1987. The interest earned during 1987,
1988, and 1989 on assets in the bank account that formerly
belonged to Americana is therefore taxable to petitioner husband.
We sustain respondent's determination.
7. Deductions
A taxpayer may deduct ordinary and necessary expenses paid
or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on a trade or
business. Sec. 162(a). Personal living expenses generally are
not deductible. Sec. 262. Deductions are a matter of
legislative grace, and taxpayers bear the burden of proving that
they are entitled to any deductions claimed on their returns.
Rule 142(a); Deputy v. DuPont, 308 U.S. 488, 493 (1940); New
Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
- 33 -
Petitioners claimed Schedules A, C, and E deductions for
each of the years in issue. Respondent disallowed some of these
deductions because the Earl Kiem Bell/Shores escrow account,
rather than petitioners, paid the expenses. Respondent
disallowed others because petitioners failed to substantiate that
the expenses had a business purpose.11
Petitioners argue that they substantiated their business
deductions with canceled checks and through petitioner husband's
testimony about the purpose of the checks.
Petitioners contend that the legal and professional fees
they paid in 1987 are deductible on Schedule C, not Schedule A,
as determined by respondent. Petitioner husband spent $6,500
in legal fees relating to his bankruptcy resulting from his and
Americana's business failure. Petitioners argue that the legal
fees are a Schedule C deduction under the origin of the claim
doctrine. United States v. Gilmore, 372 U.S. 39, 48 (1963);
Dowd v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 294, 303-304 (1977).
In Dowd v. Commissioner, supra, we relied on the origin
of the claim doctrine in deciding that business expenses of a
bankrupt taxpayer were deductible under section 162(a). Since
11
Respondent concedes that petitioners may deduct for
1987, advertising expenses of $140.13, office expenses of
$488.31, licenses and fees of $279.96, dues of $41, rental
maintenance of $684.70, and insurance expenses of $759; for 1988,
office expenses of $643.19, rental maintenance of $346, rental
insurance of $198, and Schedule C rental expenses of $6,832.85;
and for 1989, advertising of $135, and rental insurance of $197.
Respondent also concedes that petitioners may deduct a charitable
contribution of $50 to the Salvation Army for 1989.
- 34 -
petitioner husband's business failure with Americana caused his
bankruptcy, legal fees paid to file his bankruptcy petition
originated with his business. We hold that petitioners may
deduct on Schedule C legal fees of $6,500 caused by his business
failure. Dowd v. Commissioner, supra at 304.
Petitioners argue that their payments to Americana investors
of $3,725 in 1987, $1,800 in 1988, and $6,370 in 1989 are
deductible on Schedule C as ordinary and necessary business
expenses.
Respondent argues that the payments to the Americana
investors are deductible on Schedule A because Americana's
activities were not a trade or business of petitioner husband.
Many of the investors were friends of petitioner husband's
family. Respondent argues that petitioner husband's claim that
he paid investors to protect his own business reputation are
self-serving. Respondent argues that no evidence suggests that
petitioner husband's financial problems with these investors
would affect his reputation as a real estate broker.
We disagree. We find that he carried his burden of proof in
this respect. Petitioners may deduct on Schedule C the payments
to the Americana investors.
Petitioners paid income tax return preparers' fees of $872
to H & R Block in 1988. Petitioner husband argues that since he
was a sole proprietor, he may deduct the return preparation fees
on Schedule C, not on Schedule A. We disagree. Tax preparation
- 35 -
fees generally are deductible as a Schedule A expense. Sec.
212(3); sec. 1.212-1(1), Income Tax Regs.; sec. 1.67-
1T(a)(1)(iii), (b), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed. Reg. 9875
(Mar. 28, 1988). Petitioners have not provided evidence that
would enable us to find or estimate any portion of the fees that
is allocable to petitioner husband's business.
We conclude that petitioners failed to prove that they may
deduct advertising, rent, office expenses, utilities and
telephone, commissions, supplies, licenses and fees, dues, rental
maintenance, and insurance expenses in excess of the amounts
allowed by respondent. Petitioners' evidence that they could
deduct these expenses consisted of the canceled checks and
petitioner husband's testimony. Petitioner husband did not
explain the nature or necessity of some of the advertising and
rental property repairs expenses, or the business purpose for
these expenses. He did not show that some insurance expenses had
a business, rather than a personal, purpose. Many of the
disputed checks were payable to cash or to payees related to
petitioners. He did not show whether some of the license fees,
rental maintenance, and insurance expenses related to Schedule C
or Schedule E activities. Petitioners also failed to meet the
section 274 substantiation requirements for his club dues for
Club Terrasini and the Italian American Cultural Society, and for
promotional expenses for watches bearing the Soldi logo. Except
as stated in this opinion, petitioners have failed to convince us
- 36 -
that they may deduct any of the expenses in excess of those
allowed by respondent.
8. Net Operating Loss Carryforward
Section 172 allows a taxpayer to deduct net operating
losses.
Respondent determined that petitioners did not have a net
operating loss carryforward from 1987 to 1988 because
respondent's adjustments to petitioner husband's 1987 Schedule C
activity eliminated the claimed net operating loss. Petitioners
attached to their brief appendix C, entitled "Loss Carry Forward
1987", which purports to be petitioners' calculation of their net
operating loss for 1987. They did not include references to the
record, as required by Rule 151(e)(3). Due to our conclusions
about petitioners' unreported income, business expenses, rent
expenses, and additional business deductions for 1987, we are not
convinced that petitioners had a net operating loss for 1987. We
sustain respondent's determination on this issue.
9. Additions to Tax for Fraud Under Section 6653(b) and
Penalty Under Section 6663(a)
a. Background
Respondent determined that petitioner husband (but not
petitioner wife) is liable for the addition to tax for fraud
under section 6653(b) for 1988 and the fraud penalty under
section 6663(a) for 1989. A taxpayer is liable for an addition
to tax or penalty for fraud equal to 75 percent of the part of
- 37 -
the underpayment which is attributable to fraud. Secs. 6653(b),
6663(a).
Respondent has the burden of proving fraud by clear and
convincing evidence. Sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b). First,
respondent must prove the existence of an underpayment. Parks v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 654, 660 (1990). Respondent may not rely
on petitioners' failure to carry the burden of proof as to the
underlying deficiency. Id. at 660-661; Petzoldt v. Commissioner,
92 T.C. 661, 700 (1989). Second, respondent must show that
petitioner husband intended to evade taxes he believed to be
owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise
prevent tax collection. Stoltzfus v. United States, 398 F.2d
1002, 1004 (3d Cir. 1968); Parks v. Commissioner, supra at 661;
Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1123 (1983).
b. Underpayment
We conclude that respondent has clearly and convincingly
proven that petitioner husband underreported tax for 1988 and
1989.
c. Fraudulent Intent
Respondent must prove by clear and convincing evidence
that petitioner husband had fraudulent intent. Parks v.
Commissioner, supra at 664. For purposes of section 6653(b),
fraud means actual, intentional wrongdoing, Mitchell v.
Commissioner, 118 F.2d 308, 310 (5th Cir. 1941), revg. 40 B.T.A.
424 (1939); i.e., the intentional commission of an act for the
- 38 -
specific purpose of evading a tax believed to be owing, Webb v.
Commissioner, 394 F.2d 366, 377 (5th Cir. 1968), affg. T.C. Memo.
1966-81. Fraud may be proven by circumstantial evidence because
direct evidence of the taxpayer's intent is rarely available.
Stephenson v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 995, 1005-1006 (1982), affd.
748 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1984).
Respondent argues that the following badges of fraud are
present in this case: A pattern of unreported income, failure
to keep books and records, concealment of income, and false
statements to revenue agents. We disagree that the evidence is
sufficient to clearly and convincingly show that petitioner
husband fraudulently underreported income in 1988 and 1989. We
recognize that he could not accurately reconstruct income for
those years from his books and records, but we are not persuaded
that he underreported his income due to fraud, rather than
carelessness or negligence.
Respondent alleges that petitioner husband did not have
a bank account in his name. Respondent's allegation is not
entirely correct; petitioner husband had an account in his name
at First State Bank in 1987. Also, Respondent points out that
petitioner husband deposited his income in Canta's and petitioner
wife's bank accounts, that in 1988 he cashed two commission
checks totaling $14,622, and that he gave his return preparer
only the 1988 commission income documented by Forms 1099.
However, we do not believe petitioner husband's use of those bank
- 39 -
accounts was fraudulent. He deposited all of his receipts,
including the two commission checks he cashed in 1988, in bank
accounts, several of which bore his Social Security number. We
do not think that he was trying to hide his income or ownership
of the accounts.
Respondent points out that petitioner husband did not keep
books and records for his real estate business in 1988 and 1989.
However, as stated above, we do not believe that he intended to
defraud. Instead, we think he did not keep books and records
other than his checks because he was disorganized and because he
could not afford accountants. See Compton v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1983-647.
Respondent points out that petitioner husband deposited
checks from Soldi in Premiere's and Canta's out-of-state bank
accounts. Petitioner husband admitted that he routinely
transferred funds between accounts. He did this to create a
float on these funds.12 It was not an attempt to hide his
income.
Respondent points out that petitioner husband used business
bank accounts to pay personal expenses, and that he deposited
commission checks in the Homeowners account rather than in a
personal account in 1989.
12
A float exists when checks that have been credited to
the depositor's bank account have not yet been debited to the
drawer's bank account. This often permits the interest-free use
of funds during the brief period before the checks are debited to
the drawer's account. Black's Law Dictionary 640 (6th ed. 1991).
- 40 -
Respondent points out that petitioner husband deposited more
than $23,000 in checks payable to Soldi in other accounts he
controlled. Respondent argues that he tried to conceal
commissions by making Soldi commission checks payable to
petitioner wife. We disagree. We do not think this was an
attempt to conceal income because the Soldi checks that
petitioner husband wrote to petitioner wife were deposited to the
local Canta bank account that petitioner husband regularly used
and on which he was the signator. We do not believe that
petitioner husband diverted checks from Soldi to hide them from
the Government. Rather than depositing the checks to Soldi's
account, he deposited commissions he had earned to accounts that
he regularly used and on which he was the signator. We think the
fact that he left a record by depositing the checks is a factor
that negates the inference that he was trying to conceal income
from the Government.
Respondent argues that petitioner husband concealed
information from his preparers. We disagree. Petitioner husband
did not intentionally conceal information from the return
preparers; he did not have records to give them to accurately
prepare the returns. We are not persuaded that his lack of
records was due to fraud rather than negligence.
Respondent argues that petitioner husband did not cooperate
with respondent's agents, and made false statements to a revenue
agent. Respondent claims that petitioner husband told the
- 41 -
revenue agent that he maintained separate bank accounts for
personal and business activities. We do not find that petitioner
husband made false statements to a revenue agent. Petitioner
husband's business and banking activities were disorganized and
he did not properly keep separate accounts for business and
personal activities. We are persuaded that petitioner husband's
statement, while mistaken in part, was not intentionally false or
misleading.
Respondent points out that petitioner husband wrote checks
to Americana investors and noted on the checks that they were
commissions. Similarly, respondent claims that petitioner
husband falsified business expenses by misrepresenting the
purpose of the payments on the checks and on schedules he gave to
respondent. We disagree. We think this is another example of
petitioner husband's failure to keep records and the disorganized
state of his business affairs. We do not find that petitioner
husband intentionally made false or misleading statements to
respondent's agents, or that he was uncooperative with
respondent's agents.
Respondent's counsel and petitioners' counsel worked hard to
reconstruct petitioners' finances. Respondent contends that this
shows the extent of petitioner husband's efforts to conceal his
financial affairs. We disagree. We think it shows petitioners'
belated cooperation with respondent's agents in attempting to get
to the bottom of petitioner husband's finances.
- 42 -
While petitioners underreported some income and capital
loss, we are not convinced that it was due to fraud. It appears
that the underreporting was due to careless bookkeeping and
petitioners' difficult personal and financial circumstances,
which was negligent, but not fraudulent.
We conclude that respondent has not proven by clear and
convincing evidence that petitioner husband is liable for the
addition to tax for fraud under section 6653(b) for 1988 or
the penalty for fraud under section 6663(a) for 1989.
10. Additions to Tax
a. Late Filing
Petitioners filed their 1987 and 1989 returns late. A
taxpayer is liable for an addition to tax of up to 25 percent for
failure to timely file a Federal income tax return unless the
taxpayer shows that the failure was due to reasonable cause and
not willful neglect. Sec. 6651(a)(1). Petitioner bears the
burden of proving that his failure to file a timely return is due
to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. United States v.
Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); Baldwin v. Commissioner, 84 T.C.
859, 870 (1985); Davis v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 806, 820 (1983),
affd. without published opinion 767 F.2d 931 (9th Cir. 1985). To
prove reasonable cause, a taxpayer must show that he exercised
ordinary business care and prudence but nevertheless could not
file the return when it was due. Crocker v. Commissioner, 92
- 43 -
T.C. 899, 913 (1989); sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin.
Regs.
Petitioners argue that they had reasonable cause for filing
their 1987 return late because petitioner husband believed that
he had no tax liability for 1987 in view of his financial
difficulties and bankruptcy. They contend that they had
reasonable cause for filing their 1989 return late because their
infant son Antonino was gravely ill in 1989, was hospitalized and
had heart surgery in April 1990, and died in August 1990.
Illness of a taxpayer or member of his or her immediate
family may be reasonable cause for late filing if the taxpayer
shows that he or she cannot file a timely return because of such
illness. Williams v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. 893, 906 (1951);
Hayes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1967-80. While incompetence,
mental illness, alcoholism, or other incapacity may excuse a
taxpayer from late filing, a taxpayer's selective inability to
meet his tax obligations when he can conduct normal business
activities does not excuse his late filing or failure to file.
Kemmerer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-394; Bloch v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-1; Bear v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-690, affd. without published opinion 19 F.3d 26 (9th
Cir. 1994); Fambrough v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-104.
Petitioner husband had business and financial problems
during the time petitioners should have filed their tax return
for 1987. However, he continued to operate his real estate
- 44 -
business. The fact that he actively engaged in real estate
activities throughout this period, we believe, shows that his
financial difficulties did not prevent him from filing their 1987
tax return on time. We find that petitioners' failure to timely
file the 1987 return was not due to reasonable cause. Therefore,
we find that they are liable for the addition to tax under
section 6651(a)(1) for 1987.
Respondent argues that, despite petitioners' personal
problems resulting from Antonino's tragic illness and death,
petitioner husband was not ill and was able to carry on his
business activities in 1989. We disagree. Petitioners' son had
heart surgery in April 1990, around the time that their 1989
return was due to be filed. He was hospitalized until late July.
Petitioners were at the hospital with him continuously during
these 4 months. Petitioners' son died in August 1990, and they
filed their 1989 return in October 1990. We are convinced by
these facts that petitioners' late filing of their 1989 return
was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. We hold
that they are not liable for the addition to tax under section
6651 for 1989.
b. Negligence
Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the
addition to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)(1)(A) and
(B) for 1987, and under section 6653(a)(1) for 1988, and the
negligence penalty under section 6662(b)(1) for 1989.
- 45 -
Petitioners have the burden of proving that they were not
negligent. Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947 (1985).
Section 6653(a)(1)(A) (and section 6653(a)(1)) imposes an
addition to tax equal to 5 percent of the underpayment of tax if
any part of the underpayment is due to negligence or intentional
disregard of rules or regulations. Section 6653(a)(1)(B) imposes
an additional liability of 50 percent of the interest due on the
underpayment of tax attributable to negligence or intentional
disregard of rules or regulations. Beginning in 1989, taxpayers
are liable for a penalty equal to 20 percent of the part of the
underpayment attributable to negligence. Secs. 6662(a), (b)(1).
Negligence includes a failure to make a reasonable attempt to
comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue laws or to
exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the preparation of a tax
return. Sec. 6662(c). Negligence is a lack of due care or
failure to do what a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person
would do under the circumstances. Zmuda v. Commissioner, 731
F.2d 1417, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984), affg. 79 T.C. 714 (1982); Neely
v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioners argue that petitioner husband reasonably
believed that he had no taxable income in 1987, and that in fact,
if his personal activities are combined with Americana's, he had
a net operating loss for the year.
Petitioners contend that petitioner husband's income in 1988
was nominal since they had no taxable gain on the sale of their
- 46 -
home until they decided whether they would buy a replacement home
and roll over the gain. They further contend that they had no
taxable income in 1988 after deducting itemized deductions,
losses on the sale of real estate, and a loss carryforward from
1987.
Finally, petitioners maintain that any inaccuracies on the
1989 return occurred because their child was seriously ill and
had heart surgery in April 1990, when the 1989 return was due.
They argue that they are not liable for the accuracy related
penalty for 1989 because loss carryforwards eliminate any tax
liability for 1989.
We disagree. We believe that petitioners' tragic
difficulties with Antonino excuse the lateness of the 1989
return, but not its inaccuracies. Petitioner husband did not
have books and records showing his sales, commissions, etc., or
other information relating to the operation of his businesses.
Petitioners substantially underreported their income and
overreported their deductions for each of the years in issue. We
find that petitioners' underpayments of tax in 1987, 1988, and
1989 were due to negligence because they failed to keep adequate
records. Gilman v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 730, 751 (1979).
c. Substantial Understatement
The next issue for decision is whether petitioners are
liable for the addition to tax for substantial understatement of
income tax under section 6661(a) for 1987 and 1988. Section
- 47 -
6661(a) provides for an addition to tax in the amount of 25
percent of the amount of any underpayment attributable to a
substantial understatement of income tax.
An understatement is the amount by which the correct tax
exceeds the tax reported on the return. Sec. 6661(b)(2)(A). An
understatement is substantial if it exceeds the greater of 10
percent of the tax required to be shown on the return or $5,000.
Sec. 6661(b)(1)(A). Petitioners bear the burden of proving that
the addition to tax under section 6661 does not apply. Rule
142(a); Tweeddale v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 501, 506 (1989).
If a taxpayer has substantial authority for the
tax treatment of any item on the return, the understatement
is reduced by the amount attributable to it. Sec.
6661(b)(2)(B)(i). Similarly, the amount of the understatement
is reduced for any item adequately disclosed either on the
taxpayer's return or in a statement attached to the return.
Sec. 6661(b)(2)(B)(ii). Neither of these exceptions applies
here.
Petitioners argue that they did not substantially understate
their income for 1987 if all deductions and economic losses are
allowed for that year. They also argue that there was no
substantial understatement for 1988 because the tax liability
for 1988 is not substantial.
Petitioners omitted large amounts of income from their
1987 and 1988 joint returns, which caused substantial
- 48 -
understatements of income tax. Petitioners underreported their
income by about $47,068 in 1987 and $87,711 in 1988. Petitioners
have cited no authority for their failure to report those items
of income. We sustain respondent's determinations that
petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6661
for 1987 and 1988.
11. Whether Petitioner Qualifies as an Innocent Spouse
a. Background
We next decide whether petitioner wife qualifies as an
innocent spouse under section 6013(e).
Spouses who file joint tax returns generally are jointly and
severally liable for tax. Sec. 6013(d)(3). Petitioner argues
that she is not liable for the deficiencies and addition to tax
for substantial understatement of income tax because she is an
innocent spouse under section 6013(e). To qualify as an innocent
spouse, petitioner must prove that: (i) She filed a joint return
for the years in issue; (ii) there is a substantial
understatement of income tax attributable to grossly erroneous
items of the other spouse on the return; (iii) she did not know
or have reason to know of the substantial understatement when
she signed the return; and (iv) it would be inequitable to hold
her liable for the deficiency attributable to the substantial
understatement. Sec. 6013(e)(1). Failure to meet any of these
requirements precludes a taxpayer from qualifying as an innocent
spouse. Sec. 6013(e)(1); Purcell v. Commissioner, 826 F.2d
- 49 -
470, 473 (6th Cir. 1987), affg. 86 T.C. 228 (1986); Shea v.
Commissioner, 780 F.2d 561, 565 (6th Cir. 1986), affg. in
part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1984-310. The innocent
spouse exception is construed in view of the congressional
purpose of protecting innocent taxpayers from injustice. Sanders
v. United States, 509 F.2d 162, 166-167 (5th Cir. 1975).
Respondent concedes that petitioner meets all of the
requirements to qualify as an innocent spouse under section
6013(e) except whether she knew or had reason to know of the
understatements when she signed the returns, and whether it
is inequitable to hold her liable.13 We need not decide whether
petitioner wife knew or had reason to know of the understatements
because we conclude that it is not inequitable to hold her
liable.
b. Inequitable to Hold Petitioner Liable
To be entitled to relief as an innocent spouse, petitioner
wife must show that it would be inequitable to hold her liable
for the deficiencies in tax for the years in issue. Sec.
6013(e)(1)(D).
In deciding whether it is inequitable to hold a spouse
liable for a deficiency, we consider whether the purported
innocent spouse significantly benefited beyond normal support,
13
Respondent also points out that respondent disallowed
some of petitioners' deductions for lack of substantiation, and
deductions disallowed merely for lack of substantiation are not
grossly erroneous items.
- 50 -
either directly or indirectly, from the unreported income.
Hayman v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1256, 1262 (2d Cir. 1993), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1992-228; Belk v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 434, 440
(1989); Purcell v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. at 242; H. Rept. 98-432
(part 2), at 1501, 1502 (1984); sec. 1.6013-5(b), Income Tax
Regs. Normal support is determined by the circumstances of the
taxpayers. Sanders v. United States, 509 F.2d at 168; Estate of
Krock v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 672, 678 (1989); Flynn v.
Commissioner, 93 T.C. 355, 367 (1989).
Petitioners argue that petitioner wife did not benefit from
the substantial understatement of income by petitioner husband
or receive substantial amounts from petitioner husband in the
years at issue. Petitioners point out that petitioner wife owned
the home in which petitioners lived and she owned a home on
LaGrange which she sold in 1987. Her net cash proceeds were
$23,562, $14,848 of which she deposited in her household account.
She also received $64,482 from the sale of her home in 1988,
which she deposited in her own account.
Petitioner wife benefited from the understatements on
petitioners' 1987, 1988, and 1989 returns. Petitioner wife had
wages of $15,500 in 1987, $10,200 in 1988, and none in 1989, and
therefore depended on petitioner husband for her support. In
1987 and 1988 petitioner husband deposited funds in her bank
accounts which she used to pay household expenses. In 1989,
petitioner husband used the Premiere and Canta corporate accounts
- 51 -
to pay many of petitioners' personal, living expenses. Also,
given petitioner wife's modest income in these years, she must
have used petitioner husband's unreported income to buy the
Tanglewood home for $175,000 in 1987, and to build the Alden home
for $160,000 in 1989.
We believe that petitioner wife fully benefited from the
omitted income. We believe that she fully shared in the tax
savings from the omitted income and that the understatements let
her maintain a standard of living that she would not have enjoyed
otherwise. See Scarafile v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-512.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.