- 5 -
all joint tax return years, and 1988, a separate tax return year.
The dockets are consolidated for trial, briefing, and opinion.
The joint returns were filed by petitioner and his then-wife,
Betsy Grossman, hereinafter sometimes referred to as Betsy.
After concessions2 and deemed concessions3 by both sides,
2 Petitioner concedes the 1988 deficiency; he also
concedes the 1987 innocent spouse contention.
Respondent concedes that petitioner’s taxable income should
not be increased by $1,400 for each of the years 1983 through
1986 on account of the value of tax return preparation services
paid on behalf of petitioner and Betsy by corporations in which
Betsy owned stock. Respondent also concedes that petitioner is
not liable for additions to tax for fraud for 1987, nor is
petitioner liable for excise taxes under sec. 4973 for 1983,
1984, 1985, and 1987. On the latter issue, see, e.g., Johnson v.
Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1057, 1062 (1980), affd. 661 F.2d 53 (5th
Cir. 1981).
On opening brief, respondent “concedes the medical
reimbursement adjustment to constructive dividends in 1983, 1984
and 1985 as de minimis.” In the notice of deficiency, respondent
determined the following adjustments for medical reimbursements:
An upward adjustment of $508 for 1983, a downward adjustment of
$411 for 1984, and an upward adjustment of $55 for 1985.
Respondent’s unilateral (i.e., not by stipulation) “concession”
for 1984 would increase petitioner’s deficiency for this year.
Respondent has not asked for an increased deficiency for 1984;
see sec. 6214(a).
3 In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed
Schedule W deductions under sec. 221 (the two-earner deduction)
for 1983, 1984, and 1985. Respondent also determined that
petitioner’s taxable income should be increased by $1,400 for
1987 for the value of tax return preparation services paid on
behalf of petitioner and Betsy. See supra note 2 as to the same
issue for 1983 through 1986. On opening brief, petitioner
listed, but failed to argue these issues. Respondent dealt with
both of these issues on opening brief. Petitioner did not deal
with either of these issues on answering brief.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011