Milward Corporation - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         

          Jan. 31, 1990           32,851                                              
          The notice of deficiency includes an explanation of the                     
          adjustments that states in pertinent part:                                  
               The cash receipts and disbursements method of                          
               accounting you used to keep your books and records for                 
               the January 31, 1989 and January 31, 1990 taxable years                
               does not clearly reflect income; however, the accrual                  
               method of accounting does clearly reflect your income.                 
               Therefore, your taxable income is increased by                         
               $541,709.00 and $151,782.00, respectively.  * * *                      
               Due to the increase in your taxable income for the                     
               taxable year January 31, 1990, you did not incur a net                 
               operating loss in that year.  Since you carried net                    
               operating losses of $7,700.00 and $10,076.00 back to                   
               the January 31, 1988 and January 31, 1989 tax returns,                 
               respectively, your taxable income for the years January                
               31, 1988, and January 31, 1989, is increased $7,700.00                 
               and $10,076.00, respectively.                                          
          Petitioner invoked this Court's jurisdiction by filing a                    
          timely petition for redetermination.  Respondent filed a timely             
          answer to the petition.                                                     
               Following the filing of respondent's answer, counsel for               
          petitioner moved for (and the Court granted) a stay of                      
          proceedings to permit petitioner to submit an offer-in-compromise           
          to respondent.  One year later, however, counsel for petitioner             
          filed a motion to withdraw from the case, asserting that both               
          petitioner and Milward had failed to respond to his                         
          communications.  We subsequently granted counsel's motion to                
          withdraw and restored the case to the general docket for trial or           
          other disposition.                                                          






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011