- 2 -
signed by petitioner and his ex-wife should be held to be invalid
as an indefinite extension of the period of limitations by reason
of the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel against
respondent.2
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto are
incorporated herein by this reference. At the time petitioner
filed his petition in this case,3 he resided in Woodcliff Lake,
New Jersey.
Pursuant to an extension of time granted by respondent,
petitioner and his ex-wife (then his wife) timely filed a joint
return for 1977 on June 14, 1978. They also filed an amended
return for 1977, which was received by respondent on February 23,
1988.
1(...continued)
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2 Petitioner has not presented evidence to rebut the amount of
the deficiency or the applicability of sec. 6621(c), but rather
relies on his equitable estoppel argument as a bar to collection
of any tax liability for 1977. There was some confusion at
trial, however, as to whether petitioner had reported and paid a
portion of the tax liability when he filed his amended 1977
return. Respondent has agreed to make the appropriate adjustment
for any payments previously applied to petitioner's 1977 tax
liability in a Rule 155 computation.
3 Petitioner's ex-wife did not join in the petition and is not a
party in this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011