Robert W. Ackerman and Patricia A. Ackerman - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         


          Background                                                                  
               A complete copy of the statutory notice of deficiency is not           
          a part of the record in this case.  Based upon the pleadings, we            
          find that the deficiencies, additions to tax, and the increased             
          rate of interest on underpayments of tax due to tax motivated               
          transactions result from deductions and credits taken by                    
          petitioners as flow-through items from the 1981 partnership year            
          of "Carrington Equipment Associates".4                                      
               Petitioners argue that the issues in the present case were             
          settled and the taxes paid under prior agreements with the                  
          Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  Respondent's answer to                     
          petitioners' argument is that any prior settlements with                    
          petitioners covered matters other than those raised by the notice           
          of deficiency in this case.                                                 
               The parties submitted as evidence at trial copies of 3 Forms           
          870-L(AD), "Settlement Agreement For Partnership Adjustments And            
          Affected Items".  Each agreement is signed by petitioners and               
          dated January 2, 1990.  The three settlement agreements relate              
          to:  (a) "Barrister Equipment Associates, Series 83", for                   
          partnership tax year 1982; (b) "Carrington Equipment Associates"            

          4Paragraph 4(a) of the petition alleges that "All investment                
          tax credits were disallowed on Carrington Equipment Associates"             
          and should have been allowed.  Paragraph 5 of the petition                  
          alleges, and respondent admits in her answer that "It is our                
          information that this case is being tried under a test case on              
          the 1981 partnership of Carrington Equipment Associates".                   




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011