- 10 -
cited by respondent, is similarly distinguishable.4 Such being
the case, we have no reason to revisit the arguments advanced in
these cases nor to await the action by the Supreme Court in
Estate of Hubert.
Since petitioner has not disputed any other adjustments set
forth in the notice of deficiency,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
4 We note that in Estate of Hubert v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 314
(1993), affd. 63 F.3d 1083 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. granted 517
U.S. , 116 S. Ct. 1564 (1996), we refused to accept the
position of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Estate
of Street, and the Court of Appeals affirmed our action.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011