- 5 -
year (SRLY) provisions set forth in section 1.1502-3(c), Income
Tax Regs.4 Petitioner was also informed of respondent's
intention to raise the issue in this case by filing a motion for
leave to file amendment to answer with the Court. Counsel for
petitioner responded by letter dated June 16, 1995, expressing
disagreement with respondent's interpretation of the SRLY
provisions.
By notice dated August 8, 1995, this case was again
calendared for trial to be held in Washington, D.C., on January
16, 1996.
On September 25, 1995, approximately 21 months after the
petition was filed in this case, respondent filed a Motion for
Leave to File Amendment to Answer and lodged her Amendment to
Answer with the Court. In particular, respondent alleges that
petitioner is not entitled to a general business credit for the
taxable year ended September 30, 1989, and, in turn, that the
deficiency in this case is increased by $1,627,100.
On the same date, the parties filed a Joint Motion for
Continuance again stating that the trial of this case should be
continued pending entry of a final decision in docket No. 740-92.
4 Respondent determined that the $18,944,258 general
business credit carryforward that she originally used in
computing petitioner's general business credit for the taxable
period ended Sept. 30, 1989, originated as investment tax credit
carryovers belonging to A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. from
taxable periods preceding the date that petitioner acquired A.E.
Staley Manufacturing Co.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011