Portillo v. Commissioner

932 F.2d 1128 (1991)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Portillo v. Commissioner

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
932 F.2d 1128 (1991)

Facts

Ramon Portillo (plaintiff) worked as a painting subcontractor. Portillo accepted jobs from general contractors, who paid Portillo weekly by check for labor performed by Portillo and Portillo’s crew. Portillo did not have a bank account, so he cashed the contractors’ checks and paid his own crew in cash. Portillo kept records on his accounting ledger of the amounts contractors paid him. Each contractor issued Portillo a Form 1099 at the end of the year providing the amount paid to Portillo for his subcontracting services. Each year, Portillo submitted his ledger and his 1099 forms to a tax preparer. One of the contractors Portillo worked for, Mr. Navarro, failed to issue Portillo a Form 1099 in time for Portillo’s preparer to use it to prepare Portillo’s 1984 tax return. For that year, Portillo reported receipts from Navarro equal to the amount Portillo had recorded in his ledger. In 1985, Navarro filed the Form 1099 with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant), reporting payments to Portillo approximately $24,000 higher than what Portillo had listed on his 1984 tax return. In 1987, the IRS issued Portillo a notice of deficiency based on purportedly unreported income from Navarro. The IRS based its determination solely on the discrepancy between the receipts Portillo reported on his 1984 return and the amount Navarro reported to have paid on his Form 1099. The IRS agent who determined the deficiency was not able to obtain records from Navarro corroborating the accuracy of the higher figure and made no other attempts to prove the correctness of the deficiency. Portillo filed a petition in the United States Tax Court challenging the deficiency. The Tax Court ruled in favor of the IRS, holding that the IRS’s determination was presumed correct and that Portillo failed to prove that the determination was incorrect. Portillo appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Goldberg, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 748,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership