and adopts the Opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set
forth below.
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court
on respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, filed pursuant to Rule 40.
Petitioner resided in Phoenix, Arizona, at the time the
petition was filed in this case.
Respondent's Notices of Deficiency
By notices dated February 21, 1995, respondent determined
deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income
taxes for the taxable years 1987 through 1992 as follows:
Additions to Tax
Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec.
Year Deficiency 6651(a)(1) 6653(a)(1) 6653(a)(1)(A) 6653(a)(1)(B) 6654(a)
1987 $5,294 $1,324 --- $265 1 $285
1988 9,967 2,440 $498 --- --- 623
1989 17,260 4,315 --- --- --- 1,164
1990 11,137 2,778 --- --- --- 730
1991 16,141 4,035 --- --- --- 929
1992 25,808 6,452 --- --- --- 1,125
1 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment of $5,294.
The deficiencies in income taxes are based on respondent's determination
that petitioner, who operated a pool service business known as R & O Pool
Service, failed to report on income tax returns for the taxable years in issue
net income from self-employment, as reconstructed by respondent, as well as
wages and interest, as follows:
1(...continued)
issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011