Imelda M. Hansen - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         

          agrees with and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge,              
          which is set forth below.                                                   
                         OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE                           
               NAMEROFF, Special Trial Judge:  This case is before the                
          Court on respondent's motion for entry of decision filed May 1,             
          1995.  In the notice of deficiency dated November 5, 1993,                  
          respondent determined that petitioner was liable for a deficiency           
          in Federal income tax for the taxable year 1988 in the amount of            
          $3,197, and an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) in the              
          amount of $100.  The deficiency is based upon the determination             
          that petitioner had not filed a 1988 Federal income tax return,             
          had wages of $22,790, and was entitled to one exemption and the             
          standard deduction; the deficiency was computed on the basis of             
          the filing status of married filing separate.  When this case was           
          called from the calendar of the Court's trial session at Los                
          Angeles, California on January 30, 1995, counsel for respondent             
          appeared and indicated the parties had reached a basis of                   
          settlement, resulting in a substantial overpayment for which                
          additional time was requested for the computation thereof;                  
          subsequently, the amount of the overpayment became an issue.                
          Thus, we must decide the correct amount of overpayment due to               
          petitioner.  In her motion for entry of decision, respondent                
          asked the Court to find an overpayment of $11,343.35.  Petitioner           
          contends that the correct overpayment is $24,155.89.                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011