- 7 -
identification number (TIN) was the "primary TIN" and
petitioner's TIN was the "spousal TIN."8
Respondent's counsel received the filed return from the
Austin Service Center in late October 1995. After reviewing the
filed return, respondent's counsel ordered transcripts of account
in order to verify the correctness of the information contained
in the filed return.
On November 22, 1995, petitioner filed a reply (the reply)
to the affirmative allegations pleaded in the answer. The reply
concludes by alleging that the purported return "was 'accepted'
for all purposes in accordance with governing case law, and is
deemed to be a return for the purpose of the running of the
statute of limitations".
Upon receiving the transcripts of account in respect of the
filed return in January 1996, respondent's counsel conceded that
petitioner had paid her tax liability for 1988 and apparently
also conceded that petitioner was not liable for the addition to
tax under section 6654(a). In contrast, respondent's counsel
continued to pursue the addition to tax under section 6651(a).
However, on March 1, 1996, respondent's counsel conceded such
addition.
8 See Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1023 (1988), for
a discussion concerning the significance of these terms.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011