T.C. Memo. 1997-74
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
LEO AND ALLA GOLDBERG, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 18842-94. Filed February 11, 1997.
Joseph E. Mudd and Jeri L. Gartside, for petitioners.
Miles D. Friedman and Zachary W. King, for respondent.
Table of Contents
Findings of Fact . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Petitioners' Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Malloy Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Exchange Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Unemployment Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Petitioners' Bank Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Roman Kortava and Coastline Limited, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 13
Saddle Rock and Martis Landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Business School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Vehicle Resale Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Vladimir Chorny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
15 Hastings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Clerical Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
-2-
Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Fraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Unreported Income--Bank Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Unreported Income--Like-Kind Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Unreported Income--Unemployment Compensation . . . . . . . . . 34
Unreported Income--Kortava . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Mercedes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Saddle Rock and Martis Landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Unreported Income--Deeds in Lieu of Foreclosure . . . . . . . 42
Unreported Income--Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Schedule C Income--1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Business School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Vehicle Resale Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Schedule C Expenses--1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Vehicle Resale Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Business School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Unreported Income--Chorny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
15 Hastings--Option Payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
15 Hastings--Lease Versus Sale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Unreported Income--Clerical Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Section 6662(a) Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COHEN, Chief Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in,
additions to, and penalties on petitioners' income taxes as
follows:
Additions to Tax and Penalty
Sec. Sec. Sec.
Year Deficiency 6651(a)(1) 6653(b)(1) 6663
1988 $108,150 --- $81,044 ---
1990 108,277 $27,069 --- $81,208
1991 1,926 29,349 --- 86,945
In the alternative to fraud, respondent determined that
petitioners were liable for the section 6653(a) addition to tax
for negligence for 1988 and the section 6662(a) accuracy-related
penalty for 1990 and 1991. Unless otherwise indicated, all
section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for
-3-
the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court
Rules of Practice and Procedure.
After concessions by the parties, the issues remaining for
decision are:
For 1988, whether the statute of limitations bars assessment
and, if not, whether petitioners had unreported income from
various real estate transactions, unemployment compensation, and
unexplained bank deposits and whether they are entitled to
deductions relating to their taxi business.
For 1990 and 1991, whether petitioners had various items of
unreported income and whether they are entitled to deductions
relating to a vehicle resale business and a business school.
For all years, whether petitioners are liable for the
additions to tax and penalties determined by respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated
facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference.
Petitioners, Leo Goldberg (petitioner) and Alla Goldberg
(Mrs. Goldberg), were married and resided in Orange County,
California, at the time they filed their petition.
Petitioner immigrated to the United States from the Soviet
Union in 1977. Petitioner received a degree in engineering from
Moscow University, and he earned an M.B.A. from Pepperdine
University in December 1987. Petitioner has been involved, at
least to some extent, with real estate since 1986. He became
-4-
familiar with Internal Revenue Code provisions dealing with real
estate transactions. He prepared petitioners' tax returns for
each of the years in issue. Mrs. Goldberg signed the returns,
but petitioner did not go over the contents of the returns with
her nor did she review the returns line by line.
Petitioners reported the receipt of the following amounts on
their 1988 return:
Rents $58,955
Interest 3,359
Dividends 877
Taxi 19,500
Petitioners' 1990 and 1991 returns were received by the
Laguna Niguel District Office on October 18, 1991, and
October 15, 1992, respectively. Although each return indicated
that an extension of time to file had been obtained, each
reported that no payment had been made with the extension
request.
-5-
Petitioners' Residence
Beginning June 1, 1981, petitioners resided at 2311 Apricot,
Irvine, California (Apricot), a condominium with two bedrooms and
a loft.
On January 23, 1988, petitioners executed a "Reservation
Instrument" and made a deposit to purchase a residence located at
14 Siros, Laguna Niguel, California (14 Siros). They entered
into a purchase and sale agreement for 14 Siros on March 15,
1988, agreeing to acquire that residence for $274,900. In March
1988, they executed various documents selecting custom options
for paint, tile, and other features of the residence to be
completed at 14 Siros.
During 1988, homes in an exclusive gated community in Laguna
Niguel were made available to prospective purchasers through a
lottery conducted by Standard Pacific, L.P. (Standard Pacific).
Petitioners participated in the lottery and were selected to
acquire a residence at 25 Hastings, Laguna Niguel, on April 30,
1988. On May 1, 1988, petitioners executed a reservation
document and made a deposit for purchase of 25 Hastings.
On or after May 11, 1988, petitioners executed escrow
instructions that referred to the purchase of 14 Siros as
relating to "a 1031 tax deferred exchange". The exchange
provision of the escrow instructions was canceled in June 1988.
Construction at 14 Siros and petitioners' purchase of that
property were completed on August 2, 1988.
-6-
On August 14, 1988, petitioners executed a purchase contract
and escrow instructions for the purchase of 25 Hastings. On
escrow instructions and loan applications relating to their
purchase of 25 Hastings, petitioners represented that their
residence was Apricot. On at least two occasions, petitioner
misrepresented his monthly income on residential loan
applications.
On August 23, 1988, petitioners hired Donna Nichols
(Nichols), a real estate agent, to sell 14 Siros. Nichols lived
at 16 Siros. On September 4, 1988, 14 Siros was sold for
$385,000.
In September 1988, petitioners entered into an agreement to
sell Apricot to Hector David Cordova for $137,000. The sale was
completed on November 9, 1988. At the time of the sale,
petitioners' adjusted basis in Apricot was $126,543.
Escrow closed on the purchase of 25 Hastings on November 1,
1988. Petitioners occupied 25 Hastings as their principal
residence from November 1988 at least through the time of trial
of this case in 1996.
At the time that they contracted to purchase 14 Siros,
petitioners intended to occupy it as their principal residence.
At the time that they contracted to purchase 25 Hastings,
however, petitioners abandoned their intention to occupy
14 Siros. Petitioners never occupied 14 Siros as their principal
place of residence.
-7-
On their 1988 tax return, petitioners reported the sale of
Apricot as a sale of business property. They executed a
Form 2119, Sale of Your Home, with respect to 14 Siros. They
attached this form to their 1988 Federal tax return, thereby
claiming the right to defer under section 1034 a gain of $81,555
realized on sale of 14 Siros.
At the time that he prepared and filed petitioners' tax
return for 1988, petitioner was familiar with the requirements
for deferral of gain under section 1034. Petitioner knew that
petitioners did not qualify for deferral with respect to the gain
on the property at 14 Siros, but he nonetheless claimed the
deferral in order to defeat or avoid the taxes known to be owing
on the gain that they realized from sale of that property.
Malloy Property
On June 21, 1979, petitioner acquired an undivided one-half
interest in property at 8132 Malloy Drive, Huntington Beach,
California (Malloy). In July 1988, petitioners entered into an
agreement with Irvine Exchange Corporation (IEC) under which
petitioners were required to convey Malloy to IEC and IEC was to
act as an accommodator to petitioners for the exchange of then
unspecified property with then unknown third parties. That
exchange, however, was never completed with respect to Malloy.
Rather, on August 26, 1988, Malloy was sold to Anthony J. Vaccaro
for $209,000, of which $104,500 was for petitioners' interest in
Malloy.
-8-
Petitioners reported gain from the sale of Malloy on their
Form 4797, Sales of Business Property, attached to their 1988
return. They misreported the net proceeds they received from
sale of the property, $37,531, as the "Gross sales price" and
calculated their gain as follows:
Gross sales price $37,531
Depreciation 12,333
Adjusted basis and expenses (44,554)
Gain reported $ 5,310
The gain should have been calculated as follows:
Gross sales price $104,500
Depreciation 18,333
Adjusted basis and expenses (52,254)
Gain realized $ 70,579
Thus, petitioners underreported their income of the Malloy
property by $65,269. At the time that he prepared petitioners'
1988 Federal tax return, petitioner knew that he was required to
report the gross sales price, not the net proceeds, in computing
the gain. He failed to report the gross sales price in order to
defeat or avoid the payment of taxes known to be owing on
petitioners' gain from the sale of Malloy.
Exchange Properties
On or about January 31, 1986, petitioners acquired for
$205,000 an interest in certain property in Orange County,
California, known as the Detroit properties. In February 1986,
petitioners conveyed an undivided one-half interest in the
Detroit properties to Boris and Natliya Landau (the Landaus) for
no cash consideration.
-9-
In August 1988, petitioners entered into an exchange
agreement under which they would exchange their interest in the
Detroit properties for yet unspecified property that was subject
to a mortgage of at least $106,523. By grant deed dated August
31, 1988, petitioners transferred their interest in the Detroit
properties to IEC. IEC and the Landaus then conveyed the Detroit
properties to a purchaser for $365,000, or $182,500 for
petitioners' one-half interest. On their 1988 return,
petitioners reported that their adjusted basis in the Detroit
properties was $132,840 and that the Detroit properties were sold
in a transaction in which no gain or loss was recognized under
section 1031. By the end of 1988, petitioners had taken
depreciation on the Detroit properties equal to $14,073.
On or about July 10, 1986, petitioners acquired an interest
in certain real property in Huntington Beach, California, known
as the 8th Street property. On or about August 19, 1986,
petitioners acquired an additional interest in the 8th Street
property.
In September 1988, petitioners entered into an exchange
agreement with IEC to exchange their interest in the 8th Street
property for, as of then, unidentified property. By grant deed
dated September 12, 1988, petitioners transferred their interest
in the 8th Street property to IEC. IEC then conveyed the 8th
Street property to a purchaser for $344,000. Petitioners
reported that their adjusted basis in the 8th Street property was
-10-
$219,234 and that allowable depreciation totaled $13,753. On
their 1988 return, petitioners reported that the 8th Street
property was sold in a transaction in which no gain or loss was
recognized under section 1031.
Standard Pacific allowed each purchaser to purchase only one
home on Hastings through its lottery system. Lisa Shumin
(Shumin), Mrs. Goldberg's mother, entered the lottery with
Standard Pacific and was selected to acquire 29 Hastings. The
total purchase price of 29 Hastings was $475,000. Standard
Pacific received an initial deposit of $8,000 in Shumin's name on
or about May 2, 1988.
During 1988 through 1990, Shumin worked as an accountant and
earned approximately $24,000 per year. Shumin qualified to
purchase 29 Hastings only because she misrepresented her income
and job title on the Buyer's Financial Worksheet provided to
Standard Pacific's representative and on the loan application
with Home Savings of America under which the bank loaned $356,200
to her. Of the $122,500 that was needed as a downpayment to
acquire 29 Hastings, petitioners provided at least $93,500,
including the initial deposit and $80,000 that was transferred
from petitioners' escrow on the sale of 14 Siros.
On August 14, 1988, escrow opened for Shumin's purchase of
29 Hastings. Shumin paid $10,119 for flooring installed in 29
Hastings. From December 2, 1988, until February 1989, Shumin
paid $46,500 for landscape improvements to 25 and 29 Hastings.
-11-
On October 5, 1988, petitioners, Shumin, and IEC executed a
document entitled "Acquisition of Exchange Property Instructions"
that designated 29 Hastings as the exchange property for the
Detroit properties and the 8th Street property. IEC agreed to
purchase 29 Hastings for $540,000.
Escrow closed for Shumin's purchase of 29 Hastings on
October 21, 1988. The proceeds from Shumin's $356,200 Home
Savings of America loan were remitted to Standard Pacific.
On December 15, 1988, escrow closed on Shumin's sale of
29 Hastings to petitioners (through IEC), and she received
$180,094 from Merrill Lynch Escrow. Petitioners assumed the Home
Savings of America loan on 29 Hastings. The proceeds from the
sales of the Detroit properties and the 8th Street property
resulted in a balance of approximately $219,516.78 in
petitioners' escrow account. Approximately $184,000 of these
funds was needed for the purchase of 29 Hastings. Instead of
receiving the excess proceeds from the escrow, petitioners, under
the terms of the exchange agreement, deposited the excess
proceeds to be used to pay down the mortgage they assumed on 29
Hastings. On December 21, 1988, Home Savings of America received
$36,335.11 from Merrill Lynch Escrow on behalf of petitioners to
be applied to reduce the mortgage on 29 Hastings. Home Savings
of America confirmed, in a letter to petitioners dated
February 1, 1989, that petitioners' December 20, 1988, payment
was received on December 21, 1988, and was applied to the
-12-
principal ($33,366.58) and to the interest ($2,818.53) on the
29 Hastings loan.
Petitioners realized gain from the above exchange
transactions in an amount equal to the following:
Fair market value of property received $540,000.00
Cash received 36,335.11
Indebtedness on property surrendered 279,987.00
Total consideration received 856,322.11
Basis of properties surrendered
Detroit $132,840
8th Street 219,234
352,074
Less depreciation
Detroit $ 14,073
8th Street 13,753 (27,826) (324,248.00)
Indebtedness on property received (356,024.77)
Gain realized $176,049.34
Unemployment Compensation
Until February 27, 1988, petitioner was employed full time
as an engineer for Analog. For the remainder of the year,
petitioner received checks for unemployment compensation.
Petitioner received a total of $5,934 in unemployment
compensation from the State of California during 1988.
Petitioners reported $1,328 of unemployment compensation on their
1988 tax return.
Petitioners' Bank Accounts
During all or part of the years in issue, petitioners
maintained the following banking and brokerage accounts:
-13-
Location Account # Name on Account
California Federal 6130 Petitioner
California Federal 5272 Joint1
California Federal 502396 Joint
California Federal 6250 Coastline Limited
California Federal 4959 Joint
Bank of America 127021914 Petitioner
Bank of America 10223-338 Coastline Limited
Great Western 503146 Petitioner
American Savings Bank 530934 Joint
Dean Witter 370892 Joint
Charles Schwab 5900 Joint
Charles Schwab 5846 Petitioner
California Federal 6654 Petitioner3
California Federal 503864 Petitioner
California Federal 6737 Petitioner4
California Federal 503960 Joint5
California Federal 503987 Petitioner6
California Federal 504025 Petitioner7
Dean Witter 37733 Coastline Limited
Dean Witter 37088 Petitioner
Charles Schwab 3843 Coastline Ltd.
1
This account was petitioners' personal savings
account.
2
Originally, this was account number 29623.
3
This account was a fiduciary account set up for
David Michael Goldberg, petitioners' son.
4
This account was a fiduciary account set up for
Josephine D. Goldberg, petitioners' daughter.
5
Petitioner's mother, Faina Gruzman, was also
listed on this account.
6
Faina Gruzman was also listed on this account.
7
Gregory P. Moeller and Nathan Totosian were also
listed on this account.
Petitioners sold Analog Devices (Analog) stock and
deposited, on June 9, 1988, $44,816 of proceeds from the sale
into their Charles Schwab brokerage accounts. There was no
taxable gain on the sale of the Analog stock.
Roman Kortava and Coastline Limited, Inc.
Petitioner met Roman Kortava (Kortava) in 1989 at a party in
the United States for their wives' relatives. From 1990 through
-14-
1992, Kortava, a native of Leningrad, lived and worked as a
banker in the former Soviet Union. Kortava founded his own bank
and monetary fund. Kortava made approximately $500,000 through
foreign currency exchange transactions during 1989 and 1990.
On September 10, 1990, Kortava and petitioner agreed that
Kortava would transfer $500,000 to petitioner for real estate
investments in the United States. Petitioner was to manage these
funds. Within days, they modified their agreement. Kortava
decided it would be better to organize a corporation and transfer
his funds to it and not to petitioner personally.
Coastline Limited (Coastline), a California corporation, was
incorporated for the purposes of real estate, consulting, and
marketing trade. Kortava nominally was the chief financial
officer of Coastline. Coastline never filed a Federal income tax
return.
Kortava transferred by wire to petitioner the following
amounts:
Date Amount Transferred to1
10/22/90 $ 20,000 6130
11/19/90 38,000 61302
11/19/90 20,000 61302
12/12/90 200,000 6250
12/21/90 14,544 61302
$292,544
01/29/91 7,046 6130
04/17/91 85,000 6130
05/31/91 80,000 6130
07/11/91 29,985 6130
07/12/91 35,000 61303
10/03/91 1,581 6130
-15-
10/11/91 17,000 6130
10/11/91 20,000 6130
$275,612
1
All account numbers are for California Federal
accounts.
2
These amounts are considered under Schedule C
Income.
3
Petitioners reported this amount on their 1991
Schedule C for the resale vehicle business.
In 1991, at Kortava's request, petitioner returned $165,000 to
Kortava.
On October 24, 1990, petitioner transferred to California
Federal account number 5272 the $20,000 that Kortava wired on
October 22, 1990. On December 15, 1990, petitioner transferred
$50,000 from California Federal account number 6250 to open Bank
of America account number 10223-338. On February 6, 1991,
petitioner transferred $50,000 from California Federal account
number 6250 to open Dean Witter account number 37733. On May 30,
1991, petitioner transferred $85,000 from California Federal
account number 6250 to Schwab account number 3843. On August 8,
1991, petitioner transferred $19,000 from California Federal
account number 6250 to Dean Witter account number 37733. On
April 30, 1991, Mrs. Goldberg transferred $51,151.95 from Bank of
America account number 10223-338 to Schwab account number 3843.
On June 21, 1991, petitioner transferred $188,000 from California
Federal account number 6130 to petitioners' personal savings
account, California Federal account number 5272.
-16-
Some of petitioners' personal expenses were paid with funds
from Coastline.
Saddle Rock and Martis Landing
On March 6, 1990, petitioners withdrew $80,000 from
California Federal account number 5272. Petitioners loaned
$88,800 ($8,800 represented interest) to Lee and Catherine Wood
(the Woods) by note dated March 7, 1990 (the March 7 note). The
March 7 note was secured by a deed of trust on the Woods'
property at 25881 Saddle Rock Place, Laguna Hills, California
(Saddle Rock).
On April 20, 1990, petitioner withdrew $50,000 from
California Federal account number 5272, and petitioners loaned
$55,500 ($5,500 represented interest) to the Woods. The Woods
gave to petitioner a $55,000 note (the April 20 note). The
April 20 note was secured by two deeds of trust, one on Saddle
Rock and the other on 1114 Martis Landing, Truckee, California
(Martis Landing).
Because of financial problems, the Woods could no longer
continue to pay their liabilities to petitioners. On June 19,
1991, the Woods and petitioners entered into an agreement whereby
the Woods conveyed Martis Landing and Saddle Rock to petitioners
by deeds in lieu of foreclosure. In return, petitioners released
the Woods from the March 7 note and the April 20 note.
-17-
When the Woods conveyed Martis Landing to petitioners, Bank
of America held a first deed of trust with a balance of about
$135,990 on the property.
Petitioners took title to Saddle Rock subject to a deed of
trust in favor of Hawthorne Savings and Loan Association
(Hawthorne), securing a mortgage with a balance, as of June 7,
1991, of $464,300.37. Petitioners also took title to Saddle Rock
subject to a deed of trust that secured a real estate loan with
Topa Savings Bank (Topa) with a balance of $203,610.12 on June 4,
1991. On June 21, 1991, petitioner paid $20,000 from California
Federal account number 5272 to Mission Viejo National Bank in
satisfaction of a third trust deed on Saddle Rock.
The funds for the following payments were withdrawn from one
of petitioners' joint accounts, California Federal account number
5272: (1) $80,000 for a loan to the Woods; (2) $50,000 for a
loan to the Woods; (3) $28,529 for a payment to Topa; and
(4) $20,000 for a payment to Mission Viejo National Bank.
Petitioners also paid the following amounts out of Dean Witter
account number 37733, a Coastline account: (1) $4,191.02 to
Placer County Tax Collector for delinquent property taxes on
Martis Landing; (2) $2,547.38 to Bank of America for delinquent
payments on the Martis Landing loan; and (3) $8,203.72 to Orange
County Tax Collector for delinquent property taxes on Saddle
Rock. The funds in Dean Witter account number 37733 were
transferred from California Federal account number 6250, a
-18-
Coastline account, where Kortava's initial wire transfer of
$200,000 was deposited. Petitioners did not have an investment
in Saddle Rock and Martis Landing to the extent of the delinquent
tax payments, because those payments were made with funds
belonging to Coastline, but the other items were paid with
petitioners' personal funds.
On October 29, 1991, petitioners sold Martis Landing for
$225,000 and received their net proceeds, $65,837.62, by check.
Petitioners reported the sale of Martis Landing on Form 4797 on
their 1991 return, reporting $13,958 of selling expenses and
$10,312 of gain. Coastline was not a party to the sale of Martis
Landing.
On January 1, 1992, Saddle Rock was sold to Gregory P.
Moeller (Moeller) for $850,000. A Long Form Land Contract
between Coastline, as vendor, and Moeller, as vendee, for the
sale of Saddle Rock was not recorded until November 18, 1994.
Petitioners' and Moeller's signatures on the contract were not
acknowledged before a notary public until November 1994.
Kortava emigrated from Russia in March 1992 and lived in
California for the remainder of 1992.
In 1994, Kortava hired an attorney to assist him in
determining the ownership of Martis Landing and Saddle Rock.
Because of title reports provided by the attorney and a real
estate agency, Kortava believed that petitioners, not Coastline,
owned the properties.
-19-
Business School
Petitioner operated the business school as a sole
proprietorship under the name Coastline Ltd. The business school
was formed to send American instructors to Russia to train
Russian business students in the areas of economics,
international marketing, general management, and comparative
international management.
Petitioners reported all of the income and expenses of the
business school on their Schedule C. Petitioner received a total
of $34,544 from Kortava in 1990 for use in the business school.
Petitioner, d/b/a Coastline, Inc., entered into a contract
with Advanced Education Systems, Inc. (AESI contract).
Petitioners paid at least $20,033 of expenses incurred under the
AESI contract with funds from Dean Witter account number 37733,
including the following:
Date Payee Amount
03/15/91 Carrousel Tour Travel $ 830
04/11/91 AESI 4,000
04/23/91 Carrousel Tour Travel 7,391
06/02/91 AESI 4,000
08/28/91 AESI 1,000
08/29/91 Carrousel Tour Travel 1,104
09/13/91 AESI 240
09/91 VISA1 1,468
1
Includes gasoline, meals, lodging, and
entertainment.
Petitioner and seven others traveled to Russia as part of
the operation of the business school. At the end of the course
in Russia, the top students were invited to visit the United
States for additional studies.
-20-
Vehicle Resale Business
Petitioner conducted a vehicle resale business as a sole
proprietorship. The vehicle resale business was reported on
petitioners' Schedule C under the name Coastline Ltd., Leo
Goldberg sole proprietor. Petitioners paid $125 and $3,650 from
Schwab account number 3843 for expenses of the vehicle resale
business.
During 1990 and 1991, Kortava transferred $72,544 of his
personal funds to petitioner to purchase cars for resale in
Russia. In 1990, petitioner received $38,000 from Kortava and
deposited this amount in California Federal account number 6130,
one of his personal accounts. Petitioners reported $72,544 in
gross receipts on Schedule C of their 1991 return. The contract
for the sale of vehicles required specific vehicles to be
delivered to Russia. If petitioner could not provide those
specific vehicles, the money was to be returned to Kortava in
Russia. When it was obvious that petitioner would not be able to
meet the requirements of the contract, the agreement was
modified, and petitioner sent to Russia his personal vehicle, a
1984 Mercedes Benz (Mercedes), and another replacement vehicle in
1991. The Mercedes had scratches and some additional damage when
petitioner shipped it to Kortava. Kortava wired to petitioner
$20,000 as consideration for petitioner's shipping the Mercedes
to Russia.
-21-
During 1990 and 1991, petitioner purchased the following
cashier's checks with funds from California Federal account
number 6130:
Date Payee Amount
12/31/90 Coastline Imports $ 8,500
01/03/91 Coastline Imports 5,340
02/20/91 Ranko Balog Co. 3,600
07/17/91 Sharp Auto Sales 17,000
These checks were used to pay expenses of the resale vehicle
business.
Petitioners did not pay any of the claimed $62,808 of
expenses for the vehicle resale business with their own funds.
Vladimir Chorny
During 1990, petitioners received the following amounts from
Vladimir Chorny (Chorny):
Date Amount Purpose
01/27/90 $ 5,000 Real estate services
02/19/90 1,800 Real estate services
02/26/90 60 [Unclear from the record.]
02/26/90 2,435 Real estate services
04/07/90 1,050 Possibly real estate services
04/12/90 15,412 Engineering consulting
Petitioners reported $5,285 of the above amounts on their 1990
Schedule C as income from real estate consulting.
During 1991, petitioners received the following amounts from
Chorny:
Date Amount
07/29/91 $ 250
09/02/91 9,000
-22-
The purpose of these checks is unclear from the record.
Petitioners did not report any of the above amounts on their 1991
Schedule C.
During 1990 and 1991, petitioners paid the following amounts
to the Chornys:
Date Payee Amount Memo
01/19/90 Vladimir Chorny $ 2,025 5,000 for stock @ 18¢ per share
01/19/90 Vladimir Chorny 5,000 None
06/24/91 Margarita Chorny 30,000 Lisa Shumin loan 1 year
09/20/91 Vladimir Chorny 9,000 None
15 Hastings
On November 10, 1986, petitioners acquired Lots 20 and 22 in
Block 212 of Huntington Beach, California (13th Street), for
$225,000. On October 30, 1989, petitioners opened escrow on
their purchase of 15 Hastings, Laguna Niguel, California
(15 Hastings), for $610,000. Petitioners considered 15 Hastings
to be the property that replaced the 13th Street property.
On or about November 15, 1989, petitioners obtained a
$390,000 loan from World Savings and Loan Association (World
Savings) and used the proceeds from this loan to acquire
15 Hastings. The World Savings loan was secured by a first trust
deed on 15 Hastings. On November 20, 1989, escrow closed for
petitioners' acquisition of 15 Hastings.
On November 1, 1989, petitioners and the Woods executed a
four-page document entitled "Lease Option" for 15 Hastings. The
Woods were in the midst of a divorce, and Catherine Wood
(Mrs. Wood) needed a place to live. At this same time, the Woods
were trying to sell their marital residence. The Lease Option
-23-
was to expire June 3, 1991. The Lease Option provided that the
monthly lease payments would equal "the principal, interest,
taxes, insurance and Association dues. (NONE of which is to be
applied towards the purchase price.)" Under the terms of the
Lease Option, the seller/optionor (petitioners) was to "keep
current the existing trust deed loans, taxes and insurance and
homeowners association dues during the entire option period to
the close of escrow." Lee Wood (Mr. Wood) was to be provided
with the necessary documentation for purposes of tax deductions
related to 15 Hastings to be taken by Mr. Wood.
On November 3, 1989, petitioners and the Woods signed a
two-page document entitled "Real Estate Purchase Option"
agreement for the property located at 15 Hastings. The Real
Estate Purchase Option was to expire June 1, 1991. The terms of
the Real Estate Purchase Option were different than those
contained in the Lease Option. The Real Estate Purchase Option
did not provide for lease payments but instead stated that
"optionees agree to pay all carrying costs in respect to the said
property for the duration of the term of this option period to
include: principal, interest, taxes, monthly association dues,
any applicable insurance premiums; optionees further agree to
maintain the property in good repair".
Also on November 3, 1989, the Woods deposited $10,000 with
Escrow Masters as an option fee. The option fee was available to
petitioners at any time following consummation of this option
agreement. On December 1, 1989, petitioners withdrew the $10,000
-24-
option fee from their escrow account at Escrow Masters and
deposited it into California Federal account number 502396.
Petitioners did not report receipt of the $10,000 option fee on
their 1989, 1990, or 1991 return.
On December 1, 1989, the Woods executed a note in favor of
petitioners in the amount of $232,000. The terms of the note
were "On or before June 3, 1991", with interest from November 20,
1989, payable in interest only until June 3, 1991, with the
entire principal and accrued interest being due in full at that
time.
Although the option was to expire in June 1991, on March 7,
1991, the Woods decided not to exercise their option on
15 Hastings. At this time, Mrs. Wood entered into a rental
agreement with petitioners whereby she rented 15 Hastings for
$3,149.69 per month, plus the association fee and gardening
expenses. Petitioners reported the rent received from the Woods
on Schedule E of the 1990 and 1991 returns as rental income.
Clerical Fee
On August 12, 1991, petitioner received a $535 check drawn
on the account of Wood and Morimoto, P.C.
OPINION
Because the statutory notice of deficiency for 1988 was sent
on July 20, 1994, more than 3 years after the filing of the 1988
return, assessment of a deficiency for that year is barred unless
either section 6501(c)(1), dealing with false or fraudulent
-25-
returns, or section 6501(e)(1)(A), dealing with substantial
omission of income, extends the period for assessment. If we
were to decide that neither section applies in this case,
discussion of the other issues for 1988 would be unnecessary.
With respect to fraud, conduct over a period of years may be
considered in determining fraudulent intent for a particular
year. Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 499 (1943).
Respondent must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
Sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b). She must prove an underpayment
without reliance on petitioners' failure to overcome the normal
presumption of correctness of the notice of deficiency. Otsuki
v. Commissioner, 53 T.C. 96, 106 (1969). On the other hand, a
determination that respondent has not proven fraud by clear and
convincing evidence is not inconsistent with a determination that
petitioners have failed in their burden of proof or that the
preponderance of the evidence establishes that they have
unreported income or have claimed deductions to which they are
not entitled.
For the foregoing reasons, we begin our discussion with an
analysis of the issues relating to fraud. For the reasons set
forth below, we conclude that respondent has proven fraud for
1988 but has not proven fraud for 1990 or 1991.
Fraud
The addition to tax for fraud under section 6653(b), and its
successor penalty under section 6663, are civil sanctions
-26-
intended to safeguard the revenue and to reimburse the Government
for the heavy expense of investigation and for the loss resulting
from a taxpayer's fraud. Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391,
401 (1938); Ianniello v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 165, 183-185
(1992). Respondent has the burden of proving, by clear and
convincing evidence, an underpayment for each year and that some
part of the underpayment was due to fraud. If respondent
establishes that any portion of the underpayment is attributable
to fraud, the entire underpayment is treated as attributable to
fraud and subjected to a 75-percent addition to tax or penalty,
unless the taxpayer establishes that some part of the
underpayment is not attributable to fraud. See section
6653(b)(2) for 1988 and section 6663(b) for 1990 and 1991.
Respondent's burden with respect to fraudulent intent is met
if it is shown that the taxpayer intended to conceal, mislead, or
otherwise prevent the collection of taxes known to be owing.
See, e.g., Webb v. Commissioner, 394 F.2d 366, 377 (5th Cir.
1968), affg. T.C. Memo. 1966-81. Fraud may be proved by
circumstantial evidence because direct proof of the taxpayer's
intent is rarely available. The taxpayer's entire course of
conduct may establish the requisite fraudulent intent. Stone v.
Commissioner, 56 T.C. 213, 223-224 (1971); Otsuki v.
Commissioner, supra at 105-106. Fraudulent intent may be
inferred from various "badges of fraud". Bradford v.
-27-
Commissioner, 796 F.2d 303, 307 (9th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C. Memo.
1984-601.
Respondent has alleged several items that petitioners
omitted from their reported income for the years in issue that
result in an underpayment of tax. Respondent also contends that
petitioners failed to cooperate and to produce books and records
and that such failure is evidence of fraudulent intent.
Respondent contends that petitioners filed a false Form 2119
relating to their gain from sale of 14 Siros when they knew they
were not entitled to application of section 1034 to that sale.
Section 1034 clearly applies only to property used by a taxpayer
as his or her principal residence. The concept of principal
residence is neither complicated nor arcane. By 1988, petitioner
had been involved in real estate transactions for over 2 years
and had earned an M.B.A. degree. He testified that he read the
instructions concerning section 1034. In their brief,
petitioners do not contend that they were entitled to apply
section 1034; they merely argue:
While perhaps the home at Apricot should have been
considered their principal residence and the home at
14 Siros should have been left out of the equation, to
take the best advantage under the tax laws is what the
Petitioners thought they could legally do. They
believed that the intent to make 14 Siros their home,
coupled with the actions such as delivery of furniture
and so forth, adequately complied with the law relative
to Internal Revenue Code sec. 1034.
The phrase "principal residence" is not defined by the Code;
however, section 1.1034-1(c)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs., provides
-28-
that the determination of whether a property is used by a
taxpayer as his principal residence "depends upon all the facts
and circumstances in each case, including the good faith of the
taxpayer." Generally, for property to be "used by the taxpayer
as his principal residence" within the meaning of section
1034(a), that taxpayer must physically occupy and live in the
dwelling. Houlette v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 350, 354 (1967);
Stolk v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 345, 353-356 (1963), affd. 326
F.2d 760 (2d Cir. 1964). See generally Perry v. Commissioner, 91
F.3d 82 (9th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-247, for a recent
summary of applicable rules.
For 1988, we have specifically found that petitioners did
not occupy 14 Siros as their principal place of residence. We
also found that, when he prepared and filed petitioners' return
for 1988, petitioner was familiar with the requirements for
deferral of gain under section 1034 and knew that petitioners did
not qualify for deferral with respect to the gain on the property
at 14 Siros, but nonetheless claimed the deferral on the return
in order to defeat or avoid the taxes known to be owing on the
gain that they realized from sale of that property. In addition,
petitioners reported sale of their actual residence, Apricot, as
a sale of business property, thereby concealing the identity of
their actual residence. We reject the testimony by both
petitioners at trial that they actually resided at 14 Siros and
that they received rental income from a tenant at Apricot.
-29-
Petitioners' explanations are improbable, in view of the sequence
of events, and were contradicted by disinterested witnesses.
Implausible explanations of this kind are among identified badges
of fraud. See Bradford v. Commissioner, supra.
We have also found that petitioner intentionally
underreported income from sale of the Malloy property by $65,269
in order to defeat or avoid the payment of taxes known to be
owing on that gain. From his testimony and from the entire
record, we are satisfied that petitioner had the education and
intelligence to understand what was required and that he
deliberately falsified his return in order to avoid payment of
tax known to be owing. Although we do not believe her trial
testimony, we have no evidence that Mrs. Goldberg had the
education or experience to know that these transactions were
falsely reported. The addition to tax for fraud for 1988 will be
sustained only as to petitioner. See Minter v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1991-448; Congelliere v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1990-265.
Our conclusions as to the above two items for 1988 are
sufficient to establish an underpayment of tax for that year and
to shift to petitioner the burden of showing that any other
portion of an underpayment is not due to fraud. Respondent has,
however, conceded that certain disallowed expenses do not result
in an underpayment due to fraud, and those concessions will
affect the final computation.
-30-
Our conclusions regarding fraud are also sufficient under
section 6501(c)(1) to overcome the bar of the statute of
limitations for that year. See Stone v. Commissioner, 56 T.C.
213, 228 (1971). Therefore, it is not necessary for us to
discuss whether respondent has proven a substantial omission of
income for purposes of section 6501(e)(1).
For 1990 and 1991, respondent bases her determination of
fraud on petitioners' failure to report income allegedly
embezzled from Kortava and on postponement of reporting income
from the vehicle resale business. Respondent has not proven by
clear and convincing evidence that petitioner embezzled money
from Kortava or that petitioners failed to report money received
from Kortava as income with knowledge that the funds were
taxable. Although petitioner exercised control over the funds
and was high-handed in his use of them, leading to a dispute with
Kortava, it is not clear that petitioner intended permanently to
deprive Kortava of his funds. Respondent has not disproved
petitioners' explanation that they were investing money in real
estate and in other businesses in accordance with an agreement
with Kortava, as demonstrated by their return of $165,000 of
Kortava's money on his demand. See, e.g., Baumgardner v.
Commissioner, 251 F.2d 311, 322 (9th Cir. 1957), affg. T.C. Memo.
1956-112; Ishijima v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-353. We are
not convinced that reporting income in 1991 instead of 1990 was
due to fraud.
-31-
There is no apparent relationship between the transactions
that we determined were fraudulently reported for 1988 and the
transactions that were the basis of respondent's determination
for 1990 and 1991. Thus, there is no discernible pattern from
which fraud can be inferred. As appears from the discussion
below, the other items in dispute for 1990 and 1991 would not
support a determination of fraud. Respondent's determination
under section 6663, therefore, will not be sustained.
Respondent's alternative determination of the accuracy-related
penalty under section 6662(a) for 1990 and 1991 is discussed
below.
Unreported Income--Bank Deposits
Respondent determined during the audit, based on a bank
deposits analysis, that petitioners failed to report $48,160 of
income on their 1988 return. At trial, respondent introduced a
second bank deposits analysis increasing the claim for
underreporting to $79,147. While petitioners generally argue
that respondent's determination is incorrect, petitioners
specifically contend that respondent's analyses do not accurately
reflect certain income reported on their 1988 return.
The bank deposits analysis that was prepared during the
audit of petitioners' return is not reliable. There is no
evidence that this analysis took into account transfers,
redeposits, or returned checks. Also, this analysis does not
account for the proceeds from petitioners' sale of Analog stock.
-32-
The second bank deposits analysis identifies the following
amounts as deposits of proceeds from:
Rents $26,617
Interest 2,504
Dividends 119
Taxi checks 7,764
The second analysis does not correctly take into account the
amounts reported by petitioners.
We conclude that petitioners have unexplained deposits as
follows:
Unexplained deposits as determined by respondent $79,147
Less: Income reported by petitioners but not
accounted for by respondent:
Rent (32,338)
Interest ( 855)
Dividends ( 758)
Taxi (11,736)
Adjusted unexplained deposits $33,460
Petitioners have failed to provide any other evidence that the
unexplained deposits, as determined above, do not constitute
unreported income. Thus, respondent's determination, as adjusted
above, that petitioners had unreported income will be sustained.
Unreported Income--Like-Kind Exchange
Respondent initially argued that petitioners' transfer of
$80,000 from the 14 Siros escrow to Shumin for the downpayment on
29 Hastings and their provision of other amounts necessary for
Shumin's purchase of 29 Hastings somehow alter the exchange.
Respondent has not argued that petitioners were not repaid for
the advances to Shumin.
That petitioners provided funds for Shumin's purchase of
29 Hastings does not change the treatment of the exchange of
-33-
properties. In 124 Front Street, Inc. v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 6
(1975), the taxpayer owned an option to purchase property that
Fireman's Insurance Company (Fireman's) wanted to acquire.
Fireman's advanced to the taxpayer the funds to acquire the
property so that the taxpayer could exchange the property for
property owned by Fireman's. We held that the transaction was a
like-kind exchange and that the advance, which was bona fide, was
not boot to the taxpayer. Id. at 15-16; see also Biggs v.
Commissioner, 69 T.C. 905 (1978), affd. 632 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir.
1980). In the instant case, as in 124 Front Street, Inc., there
is no evidence that the advances that were made by petitioners
were not bona fide. Petitioners acquired 29 Hastings in a
transaction that will be respected for tax purposes. See, e.g.,
Estate of Bowers v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 582, 590 (1990); Biggs
v. Commissioner, supra at 918 (courts have afforded great
latitude in structuring exchanges under section 1031).
Section 1031(a) provides the general rule that "No gain or
loss shall be recognized on the exchange of property held solely
for productive use in a trade or business or for investment if
such property is exchanged solely for property of like kind which
is to be held either for productive use in a trade or business or
for investment." Emphasis added. Petitioners exchanged two
pieces of real estate (the Detroit properties and the 8th Street
property) for one piece of real estate (29 Hastings) plus the
excess cash proceeds. Cash is not property of like kind to real
-34-
estate, and, thus, petitioners' exchange was not solely in kind.
Gain must be recognized to the extent of such cash received
(boot). See sec. 1031(b).
The excess proceeds must be taken into account as boot
because the replacement property, 29 Hastings, cost IEC less than
the proceeds available from the disposition of the relinquished
property. By using the excess proceeds to increase their equity
in 29 Hastings (by reducing the mortgage) instead of receiving
the excess proceeds outright, petitioners attempted to avoid
treating the excess proceeds as property not of like kind. That
petitioners, not IEC, agreed to pay down the mortgage on
29 Hastings is indicative of petitioners' control over the excess
proceeds. "'The power to dispose of income is the equivalent of
ownership of it. The exercise of that power to procure the
payment of income to another is the enjoyment, and hence the
realization, of the income by him who exercises it.' * * * [The
taxpayer's] failure to receive cash was entirely due to his own
volition." Murphy v. United States, 992 F.2d 929, 931 (9th Cir.
1993) (quoting Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 118 (1940)).
Petitioners realized gain of over $176,000 and, thus, must
recognize gain on the exchange equal to $36,335.11. Sec.
1031(b).
Unreported Income--Unemployment Compensation
Respondent determined that petitioners failed to report
$4,606 of unemployment compensation that petitioner received
-35-
during 1988. Petitioners claim that the amount they reported,
$1,328, represented unemployment compensation and that the $4,606
amount that respondent claims they failed to report represented
disability compensation. Petitioner, however, has provided
neither explanation nor corroboration of any alleged disability.
Petitioner's testimony was not persuasive. Respondent's
determination that the unreported amounts represented taxable
unemployment compensation will be sustained.
Unreported Income--Kortava
Respondent determined that petitioners failed to report
income received from Kortava during 1990 and 1991. Petitioner
received $292,544 and $275,612, in 1990 and 1991, respectively,
from Kortava. Petitioner returned $165,000 to Kortava in 1991.
Preliminarily, petitioners contend that respondent's proof
at trial and argument on brief do not conform to the notice of
deficiency or to the affirmative pleadings. Petitioners note
that the statutory notice of deficiency and answer refer to
"foreign fund income" as an adjustment to income in the amounts
of $220,000 and $233,566 for 1990 and 1991, respectively. The
notice of deficiency explains this determination as "Supplemental
compensation and bonuses are includable in gross income."
Respondent's answer, in alleging fraud, states: "The petitioners
fraudulently and with intent to evade income taxes failed to
report foreign fund income in the respective amounts of $220,000
and $233,566 during 1990 and 1991 taxable years." Respondent's
-36-
argument on this issue on brief is that "petitioners stole
$568,156, both concealing and misrepresenting their use of these
funds to Kortava, and failing to report most of their
embezzlement on their returns."
In the notice of deficiency and at trial, respondent
maintained the position that petitioners had failed to report
income received from foreign sources. The record does not
indicate that petitioners misunderstood respondent's position.
In this instance, the evidence that is required to disprove the
determination in the notice of deficiency is not different than
that required to meet the position taken by respondent at trial.
Cf. Estate of Falese v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 895, 899 (1972).
Respondent has not raised a new matter. Respondent has proposed
a new theory, merely clarifying or developing the original
determination. Respondent does not bear the burden of proof on a
new theory. See Estate of Jayne v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 744,
748-749 (1974).
Petitioners do not contest that Kortava transferred funds in
the above-stated amounts to petitioners during 1990 and 1991.
Petitioners' position is that their mere receipt of the funds as
agents of Kortava does not produce taxable income.
Gross income includes all "accessions to wealth, clearly
realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion".
James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 219 (1961) (quoting
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)).
-37-
There can be no doubt that petitioners exercised control over the
funds that were deposited in or transferred to their personal
accounts. We must decide whether the extent of their control was
such that they are taxable on the amounts that were transferred
from Kortava in the years of the transfers.
The transfers from Kortava went into two accounts:
California Federal account number 6130, in petitioner's name, and
California Federal account number 6250, in Coastline's name.
Petitioners then transferred these funds to other Coastline
accounts and to their own savings account.
Petitioners claim that the funds that were transferred to
their personal savings account were payment for petitioners'
Mercedes that was sent to Russia and payment for petitioners'
interest in Martis Landing and Saddle Rock.
Mercedes
We have found as a fact that Kortava transferred $20,000 to
petitioner as consideration for petitioner's sending his Mercedes
to Russia. Petitioner did not report this amount on his 1990
return. Respondent determined that this amount represented
unreported income.
When it became apparent that petitioner would not be able to
meet the requirements of specific vehicles as contemplated by the
agreement between Kortava and petitioner, petitioner sent his
personal car, the Mercedes, to Russia. The acquisition expense
of the Mercedes was not shown on the Schedule C for 1990 or 1991.
-38-
There is no evidence that the Mercedes was ever treated as the
property of the Schedule C business. All of the indications are
that the Mercedes was the personal car of petitioners. Thus, we
conclude that the transaction occurred outside the Schedule C
business. Petitioner testified that he paid "about $20,000" for
the Mercedes when he purchased it in 1985. His testimony in this
respect is not incredible and is not contradicted. Thus, the
amount petitioner received in payment for the Mercedes was not in
excess of the cost of the Mercedes; therefore, petitioners have
no gain from the sale of their car to Kortava and have not failed
to report income related to the sale of the Mercedes.
Saddle Rock and Martis Landing
Petitioners claim that their investment in Saddle Rock and
Martis Landing was $188,000, consisting, in part, of the
following:
Loan to Lee Wood $80,000
Loan to Lee Wood 50,000
Payment to Topa 28,529
Payment to Mission Viejo National Bank 20,000
Delinquent taxes 8,203
Respondent contends that petitioners did not have an investment
in these properties because these amounts were paid with funds
received from Kortava.
Petitioners claim that $188,000 received from Coastline
represents a payment for their interest in Saddle Rock and Martis
Landing. We must decide whether Coastline ever owned the
properties.
-39-
We found as a fact that Coastline was not a party to the
sale of Martis Landing. Furthermore, petitioners reported the
sale of Martis Landing on their 1991 personal return. The
proceeds of the sale of Martis Landing were deposited into
petitioner's personal account, California Federal account number
6130. No evidence has been presented that Coastline was an owner
of Martis Landing or that Coastline received the proceeds from
the sale of Martis Landing. Petitioners never effectuated a
transfer of Martis Landing to Coastline; thus, no portion of the
money transferred from Coastline's account was in payment for
petitioner's interest in Martis Landing.
Petitioners claim that they transferred Saddle Rock to
Coastline and that Coastline then sold Saddle Rock to Moeller.
Petitioners rely on certain documents, including the following:
(1) A Long Form Security (Installment) Land Contract with Power
of Sale between petitioners, as vendors, and Coastline, as
vendee, notarized on June 21, 1991, and recorded on November 18,
1994; (2) a Grant Deed from petitioners to Coastline dated "as of
January 1, 1992" and notarized on November 17, 1994, and filed on
November 18, 1994; (3) a Long Form Security (Installment) Land
Contract with Power of Sale between Coastline, as vendor, and
Moeller, as vendee, dated January 1, 1992, and recorded on
November 18, 1994; and (4) a Notice of Supplemental Assessment
from the Orange County Assessor showing Coastline as owner of
-40-
Saddle Rock due to a change of ownership effective on June 21,
1991.
For purposes of Federal income taxation, a sale occurs upon
the transfer of benefits and burdens of ownership, rather than
upon the satisfaction of the technical requirements for the
passage of title under State law. Derr v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.
708, 723-724 (1981); Yelencsics v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1513,
1527 (1980). The question of when a sale is complete for Federal
income tax purposes is essentially one of fact. Baird v.
Commissioner, 68 T.C. 115, 124 (1977). The applicable test is a
practical one that considers all of the facts and circumstances,
with no single fact controlling the outcome. Derr v.
Commissioner, supra at 724; Baird v. Commissioner, supra at 124;
Deyoe v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 904, 910 (1976). Generally, a
sale of real property is complete upon the earlier of the
transfer of legal title or the practical assumption of the
benefits and burdens of ownership. Derr v. Commissioner, supra
at 724; Baird v. Commissioner, supra at 124; Deyoe v.
Commissioner, supra at 910.
Coastline did not receive the benefits and burdens of
ownership upon the execution of the contract of sale from
petitioners. Coastline was not entitled to possession until the
recording of the contract of sale (which occurred November 18,
1994). Risk of loss did not pass until Coastline had possession.
Coastline had no obligation to furnish insurance for Saddle Rock
-41-
until it gained possession of the property. Coastline's only
responsibility upon the execution of the contract of sale was the
payment of real estate taxes.
Coastline also did not have full legal title at the time the
contract of sale was executed. Under California law, delivery
and acceptance of a deed passes full legal title. Cal. Civ.
Code, sec. 1056 (West 1982). We have only the Grant Deed dated
"as of January 1, 1992" and notarized on November 17, 1994, in
the record. Even if the deed were effective retroactively to
January 1, 1992, Coastline did not have title to Saddle Rock on
June 21, 1991, when petitioner transferred $188,000 from
Coastline's account to petitioners' personal account.
On June 21, 1991, Coastline was not the owner of Saddle
Rock, and, therefore, no portion of the money transferred from
Coastline's account was in payment for petitioner's interest in
Saddle Rock.
In summary, petitioners have unreported income to the extent
of the moneys transferred into their personal accounts and to the
extent that moneys in Coastline accounts were used to pay
expenses of Saddle Rock and Martis Landing.
In 1991, petitioners returned to Kortava $165,000,
representing a portion of the moneys received from him. This
repayment should be taken into account in the parties' Rule 155
computation.
-42-
Respondent also determined that petitioners used funds for
unidentified and personal expenses of $8,264.64 from Dean Witter
account number 37733 and $2,736.23 from Schwab account number
3843. Petitioners, in their response to a proposed finding of
fact regarding Schwab account number 37733, claim that certain
charges from Budapest and Madrid that are reflected in the
proposed finding and on account statements are not personal
expenses. Petitioners state on brief that respondent was shown
petitioners' passports and that the passports did not reflect
travel to Budapest or Madrid. No such evidence was presented at
trial, nor was any other evidence presented concerning the actual
purpose of these expenditures. Respondent's determination that
petitioners failed to report the amounts paid as personal
expenditures will be sustained.
Unreported Income--Deeds in Lieu of Foreclosure
Respondent determined that petitioners failed to report
income received from their acceptance of Martis Landing and
Saddle Rock by deeds in lieu of foreclosure from the Woods.
Preliminarily, petitioners contend that respondent's proof
and argument on brief do not conform to the notice of deficiency
or the pleadings. Petitioners note that the statutory notice of
deficiency and answer refer to "debt extinguishment" as an
adjustment to income in the amount of $74,321. The notice of
deficiency explains this determination as "The amount of your
debt which was cancelled or forgiven is includable in income."
-43-
Respondent's argument on this issue on brief is that "petitioners
must recognize $82,485 of ordinary income from receipt of deeds
in lieu of foreclosure." Petitioners claim that, because "debt
extinguishment" is not an issue in this case, petitioners were
not adequately warned of the nature of the deficiency alleged by
respondent.
Petitioners had fair warning of respondent's position on
this issue. On brief, petitioners state: "In preparation for
trial, it was first realized that the Respondent was talking
about something totally different than debt extinguishment."
Emphasis added. Petitioners had the opportunity to present
pertinent evidence on this issue; therefore, we may fairly
consider it. However, the evidence that is required to disprove
the determination in the deficiency notice is different than that
required to meet the position taken by respondent at trial. See
Wayne Bolt & Nut Co. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 500, 507 (1989);
Colonnade Condominium, Inc. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 793, 795 n.3
(1988); Estate of Falese v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 895, 899
(1972). Thus, respondent bears the burden of proof on this
issue.
Respondent contends that petitioners had income from the
acceptance of the deeds in lieu of foreclosure, calculated as
follows:
-44-
Fair market value of properties $1,075,000.00
Less:
Basis in notes 130,000.00
Mortgages assumed:
Martis Landing 135,990.00
Saddle Rock
Hawthorne loan 464,300.37
1
Topa loan 203,610.12
Delinquent taxes paid:
Martis Landing 4,191.02
Saddle Rock 8,203.72
Mortgage payments:
Martis Landing 2,547.38
Saddle Rock
Topa loan 28,529.53
Mission Viejo National Bank 20,000.00
Martis Landing selling expenses 13,958.00
Gain reported on sale of Martis Landing 10,312.00
2
$ 53,357.86
1
Respondent's initial calculation used $184,794.94
as the amount of the Topa loan. The parties have
stipulated that the amount of the loan is $203,610.12.
2
Respondent has conceded the difference between
the $74,321 she determined in the notice of deficiency
and the $72,173.04, as she calculated using $184,794.94
as the amount of the Topa loan. We adjust the
concession to reflect the stipulated amount of the Topa
loan set out above.
Petitioners' contention regarding respondent's calculation
is that respondent has not proven the fair market values of the
properties. Respondent bases the value of the properties on
subsequent sales contracts. On October 29, 1991, Martis Landing
was sold for $225,000. On January 1, 1992, petitioners signed an
agreement to sell Saddle Rock for $850,000. Petitioners have not
claimed that these sales were anything other than arm's length
nor have they provided any evidence that the fair market values
of the properties on June 19, 1991, were substantially different
-45-
from the fair market values on the date of the subsequent sales
of the properties.
This case is unlike the situation covered by section 1038,
where the seller of real property reacquires his property in
satisfaction of indebtedness to the seller. In that case,
section 1038 provides that no gain or loss shall result to the
seller because the seller/mortgagee is reacquiring that which was
initially sold to the purchaser/borrower. In this case,
petitioners loaned $130,000 and received, through deeds in lieu
of foreclosure, property with a net value in excess of $130,000.
Petitioners have realized ordinary (because there has been no
sale or exchange for purposes of section 1231) income to the
extent that the net fair market value of the properties received
exceeded their adjusted basis in the debt. See Commissioner v.
Spreckels, 120 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1941); Pender v.
Commissioner, 110 F.2d 477, 478 (4th Cir. 1940).
In our findings of fact, we found that each of the items
that respondent used to calculate petitioners' income from the
acceptance of the deeds in lieu of foreclosure was paid or
reported by petitioners in the amounts stated above. Petitioners
have not offered any evidence of other items that would reduce
their income from the acceptance of the deeds in lieu of
foreclosure. Respondent's determination, in an amount as
corrected above, that petitioners had ordinary income from the
acceptance of deeds in lieu of foreclosure will be sustained.
-46-
Unreported Income--Interest
Respondent determined that petitioners failed to report
interest earned on their funds in the name of Shumin.
Petitioners have not presented any argument regarding
respondent's determination other than to assert, in response to
respondent's proposed finding of fact, that "respondent offered
no evidence on this issue."
Petitioners bear the burden of proving that respondent's
determination is incorrect. Rule 142(a). They failed to offer
any proof. Respondent's determination on this issue will be
sustained.
Schedule C Income--1990
Respondent determined that petitioners reported as income in
1991 funds that they received in 1990, including approximately
$34,544 from Kortava for the business school and $38,000 from
Kortava for the vehicle resale business. Petitioners exercised
complete dominion and control over these amounts and, as such,
have gross income in the amounts we conclude below. See James v.
United States, 366 U.S. 213, 219 (1961).
Business School
Petitioners have conceded that the proper year for reporting
the business school income is 1990, but petitioners have not
conceded the amount of income that should be reported.
Petitioners have not presented argument or evidence to show that
the amount of respondent's determination, $34,544, is incorrect.
Thus, respondent's determination that petitioners' 1990
-47-
Schedule C income from operation of the business school be
increased by $34,544 will be sustained. In accord with the
parties' agreement, a corresponding reduction will be made in
petitioners' 1991 Schedule C income from operation of the
business school.
Vehicle Resale Business
As to the vehicle resale business, on brief petitioners
state: "it does appear possible that at least a portion of the
income on the cash basis should have been reported in 1990."
Petitioners admit that $38,000 was received via wire transfer
during 1990.
At trial, petitioner testified that he received the wire
transfer in 1990 but that, if he had been unable to deliver the
cars as specified in the agreement, the money would have been
returned to Kortava. However, the parties modified the agreement
so that petitioner did not have to return any of the money.
As a general rule, cash basis taxpayers, such as
petitioners, must report income upon its receipt. Sec. 451(a).
Petitioners' argument appears to be that, although $38,000 was
received in 1990, the money was subject to a contractual
restriction that prohibited it from being income in 1990.
Respondent's determination is based on the claim of right
doctrine.
Income received under a claim of right is taxable in the
year received even though the recipient may be under a contingent
obligation to return it at a later time. North Am. Oil Consol.
-48-
v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417, 424 (1932). "The mere fact that income
received by a taxpayer may have to be returned at some later time
does not deprive it of its character as taxable income when
received." Woolard v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 274, 279 (1966). To
avoid the application of the claim of right doctrine, however,
the recipient must recognize in the year of receipt an existing
and fixed obligation to repay the amount received and must make
provisions for repayment. Hope v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 1020,
1030 (1971), affd. 471 F.2d 738 (3d Cir. 1973). A restriction on
the disposition or the use of the funds may also prevent the
application of the claim of right doctrine. Commissioner v.
Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 493 U.S. 203, 209 (1990).
Petitioners have not met these exceptions.
Petitioner was under a contingent, not a fixed, obligation
to repay the funds to Kortava pursuant to their agreement.
Furthermore, while Kortava may have had in mind a restriction on
the use of the funds, petitioner deposited the $38,000 in one of
his personal accounts, not in one of Coastline's accounts.
Respondent's determination that petitioners failed to report
$38,000 that was received from Kortava during 1990 will be
sustained. In accord with the parties' agreement, a
corresponding reduction will be made in petitioners' 1991
Schedule C income from operation of the vehicle resale business.
Schedule C Expenses--1991
On their 1991 Schedule C, petitioners claimed expenses
relating to a vehicle resale business and a business school.
-49-
Respondent disallowed $13,188 of expenses related to the vehicle
resale business and $28,417 of expenses related to the business
school, based on her position that petitioners did not pay the
claimed expenses with their own funds. Petitioners contend that
they are entitled to these deductions because they reported the
corresponding income from these activities on their 1991
Schedule C. We have concluded that petitioners exercised the
requisite dominion and control such that the funds received from
Kortava for the vehicle resale business and the business school
are includable in petitioners' gross income. Thus, the expenses
that petitioners incurred in the operation of the Schedule C
businesses that have been properly substantiated and that are
ordinary and necessary are deductible by them.
Vehicle Resale Business
To substantiate disallowed deductions claimed in relation to
the vehicle resale business, petitioners introduced an exhibit
that included various receipts and their 1991 tax return.
Petitioner also testified at trial as to the existence of the
various expenses.
The information contained on a tax return is not proof of
the amount of deductions contained therein. Wilkinson v.
Commissioner, 71 T.C. 633, 639 (1979). Although petitioner
testified to the contrary, the exhibit introduced at trial did
not contain receipts for gas or office expense. We require more
than petitioner's unsubstantiated and unverified testimony as to
the existence of gas expense and office expense. Wood v.
-50-
Commissioner, 338 F.2d 602, 605 (9th Cir. 1964), affg. 41 T.C.
593 (1964).
One repair receipt totaling $125 and marked paid is included
in petitioners' exhibit. This additional amount will be allowed.
As for additional vehicle expenses, we cannot determine from
the receipts in evidence that petitioners are entitled to any
deductions other than those already allowed by respondent.
Petitioners claimed that they did not include the value of their
Mercedes that they shipped to Russia as an expense when they were
preparing their 1991 Schedule C. Petitioner testified that the
Mercedes was worth $20,000 when it was shipped to Russia.
Kortava testified that the Mercedes was worth approximately
$10,000. The damage report that was completed before shipping
notes that the Mercedes had several minor scratches and a broken
headlight, as well as additional damage. No additional evidence
was presented to show the value of the 1984 Mercedes. We found
as a fact that petitioners received $20,000 in 1990 from Kortava
as consideration for petitioner's sending his Mercedes to Russia
and that petitioners did not recognize a gain from this
transaction. The record does not provide any evidence that the
Mercedes ever became the property of Coastline. Thus, the
transaction took place outside of the Schedule C vehicle resale
business, and petitioners are not entitled to a deduction on
their 1990 Schedule C for the expense of the Mercedes.
-51-
Business School
Petitioners claimed $28,417 of expenses related to the
business school on their 1991 Schedule C. Respondent disallowed
all of the claimed deductions.
We found as a fact that petitioners paid at least $20,033 of
expenses associated with the AESI contract, including $9,240 to
AESI and $10,793 for gasoline, travel, lodging, meals, and
entertainment. Petitioners have failed to substantiate any
additional expenses. We must thus determine whether the
substantiated expenses are ordinary and necessary and, therefore,
deductible.
Section 162(a) allows a deduction for "all the ordinary and
necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in
carrying on any trade or business". "Ordinary" has been defined
as that which is "normal, usual, or customary" in the taxpayer's
particular trade or business. Deputy v. du Pont, 308 U.S. 488,
495 (1940). The expense need not be one common for the
particular taxpayer, but instead one that is not rare in the
taxpayer's business. See Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 114
(1933). The substantiated expenses included "normal" expenses
for the conduct of a business school abroad, including travel to
and from Russia for petitioner and the faculty; the expenses for
AESI's building the curriculum and locating the faculty; the
food, meals, and lodging for the faculty in Russia; and the
travel, food, meals, and lodging for the top students from Russia
who came to the United States after the school.
-52-
"Necessary" has been construed to mean "appropriate" or
"helpful", not "indispensable" or "required". Ford v.
Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1300, 1306 (1971), affd. 487 F.2d 1025 (9th
Cir. 1973). It is sufficient if "there are also reasonably
evident business ends to be served, and the intention to serve
them appears adequately from the record." B. Manischewitz Co. v.
Commissioner, 10 T.C. 1139, 1145 (1948). The substantiated
expenses were also necessary, in that they were incurred with the
intention of serving the business end, mainly the conduct of a
business school in Russia.
Petitioners are entitled to deduct $20,033 as ordinary and
necessary expenses of the business school on their 1991
Schedule C.
Unreported Income--Chorny
Respondent determined that petitioners failed to report
Schedule C income of $20,472 and $9,250 in 1990 and 1991,
respectively.
At trial, petitioner testified that the payments received
from Chorny represented loan repayments. As evidence of the
debt, petitioners offered reproductions of checks payable to
Chorny or Margarita Chorny.
We are not persuaded by the checks payable to the Chornys
that Chorny was indebted to petitioner or that the checks
petitioner received during 1990 and 1991 from Chorny were not
includable in petitioners' income. At the trial of this case,
-53-
Chorny could not recall whether petitioner lent him money during
1990 or 1991 nor could he recall whether he paid money to
petitioner for any reason during 1990 or 1991. Petitioner's
explanation at trial about the existence of loans is not
credible. For example, petitioner stated that he gave to Chorny
a $9,000 check on September 20, 1991, representing a short-term
loan that Chorny paid back shortly thereafter. The $9,000 check
that petitioners received from Chorny was dated September 2,
1991.
Petitioners have not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that the checks from Chorny represented loan repayments.
Thus, respondent's determination that petitioners failed to
report $20,472 and $9,250 in 1990 and 1991, respectively, as
Schedule C income from real estate consulting activities will be
sustained.
15 Hastings--Option Payment
Respondent determined that petitioners failed to report on
their 1991 return the $10,000 option fee that was received from
the Woods.
As part of the lease option agreement for 15 Hastings,
petitioners received an option fee from the Woods in the amount
of $10,000. This amount was deposited with Escrow Masters on
November 3, 1989. The parties have agreed that the option fee
was available at any time following the consummation of the
option agreement. On December 1, 1989, petitioners withdrew the
-54-
option fee from their account at Escrow Masters and deposited it
into California Federal account number 502396. The Woods decided
not to exercise their option on March 7, 1991.
Respondent argues that proceeds from binding legal options
are not taxed until the option is exercised or lapses.
Petitioners contend that the $10,000 was received by petitioners
in 1989 and was taxable in the year of receipt.
Petitioners rely on Estate of Gordon v. Commissioner, 17
T.C. 427 (1951), affd. 201 F.2d 171 (6th Cir. 1952). In Estate
of Gordon, a $25,000 "option" payment was taxable income to the
taxpayer-decedent in the year of receipt under a claim of right.
In Estate of Gordon, the decedent had inherited a theater and
business property from her husband. A man was interested in
acquiring the property and negotiated two instruments with the
decedent. The purchase price was $125,000, and decedent received
$25,000 initially and interest was to be computed on the balance
of the purchase price, with one of the instruments requiring
quarterly interest payments. The lessee was given the privilege
of purchase at any time at the expiration of 6 months after the
death of the decedent and undertook the insurance and real estate
tax responsibilities. No outright sale was accomplished because
the lessee was not bound to purchase the property.
The present situation is distinguishable from that in Estate
of Gordon. We incorporate herein the reasoning of the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit when it distinguished the option in
Estate of Gordon from true options:
-55-
Again any analogy of this case to the present one
fails. The time during which the option could be
exercised was largely uncertain--at any time six months
after the owner's demise running the term of the lease
of twenty-five years. The primary purpose seemed to be
to provide an elderly widow with an income for her
lifetime and it was held in effect, that as such, the
$25,000 payment was to be regarded as rent or income in
advance and hence was includable in her taxable income
when she received it. [Commissioner v. Dill Co., 294
F.2d 291, 299 (3d Cir. 1961), affg. 33 T.C. 196
(1959).]
In the present case, the option term was certain, expiring in
June 1991. The primary purpose of the option payment was to
allow the Woods time to arrange funds for a downpayment.
For cash method taxpayers, such as petitioners, section
451(a) provides that an item of income shall be included in gross
income in the taxable year in which it is received by the
taxpayers. One exception to this rule of recognition is that,
when it cannot be determined whether payments received will, at
some future date, represent income or a return of capital, they
are not taxed until their character becomes fixed. Burnet v.
Logan, 283 U.S. 404, 413 (1931); Dill Co. v. Commissioner, 33
T.C. 196, 200 (1959), affd. 294 F.2d 291 (3d Cir. 1961); Virginia
Iron Coal & Coke Co. v. Commissioner, 37 B.T.A. 195, 198 (1938),
affd. 99 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1938). Respondent argues that the
option payment received by petitioners falls within this
exception.
The deferral of the taxability of option payments is based
on two considerations: (1) The grantor of an option must wait
until the option is exercised or lapses to determine whether the
-56-
proceeds for it are reportable as taxable income or as a
nontaxable return of capital and (2) if the option proceeds are
income to the grantor of the option, the character of the income
as capital or ordinary must be determined. See Old Harbor Native
Corp. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 191, 200 (1995). These
considerations remain even though the grantor retains the option
amount whether or not the option is exercised. See Hicks v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-373. Petitioners, although they
had control over and had unfettered use of the $10,000 in 1989,
had income in the year the option lapsed, 1991.
15 Hastings--Lease Versus Sale
We now must decide whether the "Lease Option" executed on
November 1, 1989, and the "Real Estate Purchase Option" executed
on November 3, 1989, effected a sale or a lease with an option to
buy. If we decide that the agreements effected a sale, we must
then decide the proper characterization of the payments received
by petitioners and the expenses claimed by petitioners.
Respondent argues that petitioners mischaracterized the
agreement by reporting the related items as though the agreement
were a lease instead of a sale. Petitioners contend that they
properly characterized the transaction as a lease with an option.
In this instance, we are not required to decide which of the two
agreements, the Lease Option or the Real Estate Purchase Option,
represented the bargain between petitioners and the Woods.
Whether a sale is complete for Federal tax purposes depends
on all of the facts and circumstances. Derr v. Commissioner, 77
-57-
T.C. 708, 724 (1981); Baird v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 115, 124
(1977); Clodfelter v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 694, 700-701 (1967),
affd. 426 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1970). We consider the following
factors in deciding whether a sale has occurred: (1) Whether the
seller transferred legal title; (2) whether the benefits and
burdens of ownership passed to the buyer; (3) whether the owner
had a right under the agreement to require the other party to buy
the property; and (4) how the parties treated the transaction.
Grodt & McKay Realty, Inc. v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1221, 1237-
1238 (1981); Derr v. Commissioner, supra at 724; Baird v.
Commissioner, supra at 124; Merrill v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 66,
74 (1963), affd. per curiam 336 F.2d 771 (9th Cir. 1964); Haggard
v. Commissioner, 24 T.C. 1124, 1129 (1955), affd. 241 F.2d 288
(9th Cir. 1956).
1. Title Passage to the Woods
While not a single determinative factor, passage of title is
an important consideration. Harmston v. Commissioner, 61 T.C.
216, 229 (1973), affd. per curiam 528 F.2d 55 (9th Cir. 1976).
Title to 15 Hastings never passed to the Woods.
2. Benefits and Burdens to the Woods
To decide whether the Woods acquired the benefits and
burdens of ownership in 15 Hastings, we look to whether the
Woods: (1) Bore the risk of loss; (2) were obligated to pay all
taxes, assessments, and charges against the property; (3) had the
duty to maintain the property; (4) were responsible for insuring
the property; (5) had the right to possess the property; (6) had
-58-
the right to improve the property without the sellers' consent;
and (7) had the right to obtain legal title at any time by paying
the balance of the full purchase price. Grodt & McKay Realty,
Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 1237-1238.
In this case, the Woods had the right to possess the
property, the right to obtain legal title by paying the balance
of the full purchase price, and the duty to maintain the property
and to pay insurance costs and taxes (under one agreement). The
Woods did not bear the risk of loss. This factor weighs in favor
of the agreement's being treated as a sale.
3. Compelling the Exercise of the Option
Under California law, an instrument is a contract of sale if
the optionee has an obligation to buy that the owner can enforce
by specific performance. Welk v. Fainbarg, 255 Cal. App.2d 269,
63 Cal. Rptr. 127, 132-133 (1967). Neither the Lease Option nor
the Real Estate Purchase Option provided that petitioners could
force the Woods to purchase 15 Hastings.
4. Intent of the Parties
Petitioner testified that title to 15 Hastings was never
transferred to anyone. Petitioners treated the agreement with
the Woods as a lease on their 1990 return. Mr. Wood testified
that he and Mrs. Wood were not renting 15 Hastings. Mr. Wood
classified the transaction, however, as a lease/option purchase
contract. Mrs. Wood said the agreement was initially
contemplated as a lease option. Mrs. Wood testified that their
-59-
original intent was to purchase 15 Hastings, but they could not
get the funds together for the downpayment. Mrs. Wood said the
agreement was then converted to a straight month-to-month lease.
The testimony given by the parties as to the agreement is
consistent with treating the agreement as a lease option.
Although the Woods wished to purchase 15 Hastings, the agreement
gave them the option of purchasing the property if they could
sell their home and get the funds for the downpayment on
15 Hastings. Because the Woods were in the midst of a divorce,
Mrs. Wood needed a place to live; thus, the lease option
agreement met the intention of the parties to the agreement.
Respondent also argues that the execution of the $232,000
note was in essence a downpayment by petitioners and that the
note is evidence of a sale. However, under a consideration of
all of the facts and circumstances, we do not conclude that this
factor is controlling.
In summary, the passage of benefits and burdens of ownership
to the Woods in the absence of title, of an enforceable land sale
contract, and of intent to effect an immediate sale does not give
us grounds for treating the agreement between petitioners and the
Woods as anything other than a lease option agreement.
Unreported Income--Clerical Fee
Respondent determined that, in 1991, petitioners received a
clerical fee in the amount of $535 from Mr. Wood. Petitioners
did not present any evidence to contradict respondent's
-60-
determination. Mr. Wood testified that, to the best of his
recollection, this check represented payment to petitioner for
expenses and time incurred by petitioner in helping Mr. Wood's
law firm with a case. Absent any evidence to the contrary,
respondent's determination that petitioners failed to report $535
of taxable income in 1991 will be sustained.
Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax
Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the
section 6651(a) addition to tax for 1990 and 1991. Section
6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file timely
a return, unless the taxpayer establishes that the failure to
file did not result from "willful neglect" and that the failure
was due to "reasonable cause". "Willful neglect" has been
interpreted to mean a conscious, intentional failure or reckless
indifference. United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245-246
(1985). "Reasonable cause" requires taxpayers to demonstrate
that they exercised ordinary business care and prudence and were
nonetheless unable to file a return within the prescribed time.
Id. at 246; sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The
addition to tax equals 5 percent of the tax required to be shown
on the return for the first month, with an additional 5 percent
for each additional month or fraction of a month during which the
failure to file continues, not to exceed a maximum of 25 percent.
Sec. 6651(a)(1).
-61-
Petitioners' 1990 return was received by the Laguna Niguel
District Office on October 18, 1991. Petitioners' 1991 return
was received by the Laguna Niguel District Office on October 15,
1992.
Respondent contends that the extensions of time to file that
were obtained by petitioners are invalid because petitioners
failed to estimate properly the tax that was unpaid as of the
date prescribed for filing the return. No payments were included
with the requests for extensions. Petitioners bear the burden of
proving that respondent's determination was incorrect. Rule
142(a); Cluck v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 324, 339 (1995).
Petitioners have failed to produce evidence that their extension
requests properly estimated the tax due, and we sustain
respondent's determination that petitioners are liable for the
section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for 1990 and 1991.
Section 6662(a) Penalty
For 1990 and 1991, section 6662(a) imposes a penalty in an
amount equal to 20 percent of the underpayment of tax
attributable to one or more of the items set forth in section
6662(b). Respondent asserts that the entire underpayment of
petitioners’ tax was due to negligence or intentional disregard
of rules or regulations. Petitioners bear the burden of proving
that respondent's determinations are erroneous. Rule 142(a);
Bixby v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 757, 791 (1972).
-62-
“Negligence” includes a failure to make a reasonable attempt
to comply with the provisions of the internal revenue laws. Sec.
6662(c); sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. “Disregard”
includes any careless, reckless, or intentional disregard of
rules or regulations. Sec. 6662(c); sec. 1.6662-3(b)(2), Income
Tax Regs.
The section 6662 accuracy-related penalty does not apply
with respect to any portion of an underpayment if it is shown
that there was reasonable cause for such portion and that
petitioners acted in good faith with respect to such portion.
Sec. 6664(c)(1). The determination of whether petitioners acted
with reasonable cause and in good faith depends upon the
pertinent facts and circumstances. Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income
Tax Regs. Petitioners have not established reasonable cause or
good faith reliance to excuse themselves from the penalties for
negligence or intentional disregard of rules or regulations. See
Mack v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-482. Petitioners have
presented no evidence that their failure to file timely or to
report their income properly in 1990 or 1991 was due to anything
other than negligence or disregard of the tax laws. See Rapp v.
Commissioner, 774 F.2d 932, 935 (9th Cir. 1985).
Petitioners' failure to maintain and to produce reliable
records of their taxi business also supports a conclusion of
negligence. Crocker v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 899, 917 (1989);
Schroeder v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 30, 34 (1963). Thus,
-63-
respondent's determination that petitioners are liable for the
accuracy-related penalty for 1990 and 1991 will be sustained.
Mrs. Goldberg is not excused from the negligence addition to
tax and penalties for 1990 and 1991 solely because of her failure
to read petitioners' returns or her reliance on petitioner for
the accuracy of the returns. Failure to read a return and blind
reliance on another for the accuracy of a return are not
sufficient bases to avoid liability for negligence. See Bollaci
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-108 (citing Bagur v.
Commissioner, 66 T.C. 817, 823-824 (1976), remanded on other
grounds 603 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1979)). Taxpayers have a duty to
read a return and to make sure all items are included. Magill v.
Commissioner, 70 T.C. 465, 479-480 (1978), affd. 651 F.2d 1233
(6th Cir. 1981) (citing Bailey v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 678, 687
(1954)).
To reflect the foregoing and the concessions by the parties,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.