- 3 -
Respondent has determined only deficiencies in income tax
against Diane Murphy. Those amounts are as follows:
Year Deficiency
1990 $9,508
1991 11,006
The sole issue for consideration in Diane Murphy’s case is
the tax treatment of the marital payments. In Ronald Murphy’s
case, however, we must also consider the accuracy related
penalties. Moreover, for 1991, respondent’s determination of a
deficiency in tax is based not only on the tax treatment of the
marital payments but also on two additional adjustments to
income, one in the amount of $4,863, described as “Itemized
Deductions”, and the other in the amount of $1,118, described as
“Deduction for Exemptions”. Although no further explanation of
the two additional adjustments accompanies respondent’s
determination of a deficiency in tax, we suspect that those
adjustments are consequential adjustments following from
respondent’s adjustment with respect to the marital payments.
Ronald Murphy assigned no error with respect to those
adjustments. Under our Rules, he is thus deemed to have conceded
any issue with respect to those adjustments. See Rule 34(b)(4).
Even if those two adjustments are merely consequential, however,
and had error been assigned in the petition on that basis, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011