- 8 -
By notice dated August 8, 1995, this case again was
calendared for trial to be held in Washington, D.C., on January
16, 1996.
On September 25, 1995, approximately 1 year 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. As is the case in docket No. 26352-93,
respondent seeks leave to allege that petitioner is not entitled
to a general business credit for its taxable year ended September
30, 1990, on the ground that the general business credit
carryforward that respondent originally used in computing
petitioner's tax liability is subject to the SRLY provisions set
forth in section 1.1502-3(c), Income Tax Regs. Consistent with
these allegations, respondent asserts that the deficiency in this
case is increased by $9,806,316.
On September 25, 1995, 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.
In addition, the parties' motion states that while petitioner
opposes respondent's Motion for Leave to File Amendment to
Answer, the parties nonetheless agree that resolution of the
general business credit issue will not require a trial for
submission of evidence. The parties' motion was granted
September 28, 1995.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011