Med James, Inc. - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          January 31, 1995.  The decision document reflected an agreement             
          by the parties: (1) The Court could enter the decision in                   
          accordance with the stipulation of the parties submitted                    
          therewith; (2) interest would be assessed as provided by law on             
          the deficiencies due from petitioner; and (3) effective upon the            
          entry of decision, petitioner waived the restrictions prohibiting           
          assessment and collection of the deficiencies, plus statutory               
          interest, until the decision of the Court became final.  The                
          decision became final on September 3, 2002.                                 
               On September 9, 2002, respondent issued a notice to                    
          petitioner reflecting an assessment of tax and interest of                  
          $63,573 and $99,100.97, respectively, for the tax year ended                
          January 31, 1994.  Respondent subsequently issued a second                  
          notice, dated October 14, 2002, which included a tax due of                 
          $162,673.97.  This notice also included a penalty of $317.86.3              
          In calculating interest, respondent applied the normal interest             
          rate prescribed under section 6621(a)(2) for the period April 15,           
          1994, until December 5, 1998.  This computation included                    
          restricted interest on $225,753 for the period April 15, 1994,              
          until April 15, 1995, and normal interest on $63,573 from April             
          15, 1995, until December 5, 1998.  On December 5, 1998,                     
          respondent began applying the increased interest rate prescribed            


               3The evidence in the record reflects that the penalty was              
          based on the failure to timely pay the assessment amount.                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011