- 12 -
In a notice of deficiency dated August 25, 1989, respondent
determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax for
1982, plus increased interest under section 6621(c). Petitioners
timely filed a petition with this Court. Their attorneys at the
time were Richard S. Kestenbaum and Bernard S. Mark (Kestenbaum
and Mark). On March 25, 1992, this Court filed its opinion in
Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, in which
Kestenbaum and Mark represented taxpayers. In our Provizer
opinion, all of the Plastics Recycling issues were decided for
respondent, including the additions to tax under section 6653(a)
and increased interest under section 6621(c). On February 1,
1994, respondent filed a motion for leave to file a first
amendment to answer in order to assert reduced deficiencies and
the applicability of sections 6659 and 6653(a)(1) and (2) for
1982. The motion was subsequently granted.
On January 24, 1994, Hugh Janow, petitioners' present
counsel, filed an entry of appearance for petitioners in this
case. Kestenbaum and Mark promptly filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel, and it was granted. On March 31, 1994, petitioners and
respondent filed a Stipulation of Settled Issues concerning
petitioners' participation in the Plastics Recycling project.
Petitioners conceded the losses and tax credits claimed on their
1982 return resulting from their participation in the Plastics
8(...continued)
although it is not otherwise a part of the record in this case.
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