Barry I. Fredericks - Page 2

                                        - 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