Ferdinand Decaprio and Claire Decaprio - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          * 50 percent of the interest due on $17,045, $4,553, and $6,452 for 1983,   
          1984, and 1985, respectively.                                               
               Petitioner resided in Montvale, New Jersey, at the time the            
          petition was filed.                                                         
               In the petition, petitioner alleged, inter alia, that                  
          assessment of the deficiencies in, and additions to, tax for                
          1983, 1984, and 19853 is barred by the statute of limitations.              
               On July 11, 1994, respondent filed an answer to the petition           
          in which she denied all substantive allegations of fact and error           
          and affirmatively alleged, inter alia:                                      
                    7.   FURTHER ANSWERING the petition, and as a                     
               defense to the assignment of error that the statute of                 
               limitations bars the assessment and collection of the                  
               deficiencies in income tax and the additions to tax due                
               from the petitioners for the taxable years 1983, 1984,                 
               1985 * * * , the respondent alleges:                                   
                         (a)  The income tax due from the petitioners                 
               for the years 1983, 1984, 1985 * * * may be assessed,                  
               or a proceeding in Court for the collection of such tax                
               may be begun without assessment, at any time under the                 
               provisions of I.R.C. � 6501(c)(1), because the peti-                   
               tioners filed false or fraudulent income tax returns                   
               for said years with intent to evade tax, as is more                    
               fully set forth by the facts alleged in paragraph 8                    
               below setting forth the details of the fraud, which                    
               facts are relied upon by the respondent as a defense to                
               any issue involving the statute of limitations.                        
                    8.   FURTHER ANSWERING the petition, and in sup-                  
               port of the determination that part of the underpayment                
               of tax required to be shown on the petitioners' income                 

          3  Petitioner also alleged, inter alia, that assessment of the              
          deficiencies in, and additions to, tax for 1986 is barred by the            
          statute of limitations.  However, in light of the representations           
          in respondent's motion that, for 1986, (1) there is no deficiency           
          in income tax due from, or overpayment due to, petitioner and               
          (2) there are no additions to tax due from petitioner under secs.           
          6653(b)(1)(A) and (B) and 6661, we shall not address any allega-            
          tions in any of the pleadings relating to 1986.                             



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011