- 10 -
Petitioners do not now dispute the substance of the
transaction, nor do they now appear to challenge their liability
for the deficiency, additions to tax, and increased interest
determined in the notice of deficiency.5 We note that although
the closing agreement is void, granting the motion for summary
judgment or entering a decision in favor of the Commissioner in
fact ironically implements the terms of the closing agreement,
upon which petitioners rely in their attempt to prevent the Court
from entering a decision against them.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order will be entered
granting the Commissioner's
motion for summary judgment
and denying petitioners'
motion for leave to file
amendment to petition.
4(...continued)
them of liability for taxes they have admitted they owe. See
supra note 2. To paraphrase Rule 41(a), justice does not so
require here.
5 Although the closing agreement is void and the notice of
deficiency would appear to control, we will not order that
petitioners be liable for the additions to tax or increased
interest. The IRS in its Memorandum of Law in support of its
motion for summary judgment concedes the issue. It states "Based
upon the foregoing, it is prayed that the Court enter a decision
reflecting a deficiency in the amount of $7,686.00 for the
taxable year 1982, with no additions to tax pursuant to I.R.C. ��
6653(a)(1), 6653(a)(2) and 6661."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011