- 5 -
the Court in Brody I. Respondent's motion points out that
the only facts raised in the petition are facts relating to
the period of limitations defense that was considered by
the Court and rejected in Brody I. For example, paragraph
six of the petition states as follows:
Because neither Denis Brody nor Carol Brody was
a partner in Thunderbird, no adjustment to the
return of Thunderbird could have directly
affected the return filed by Mr. and Mrs. Brody.
Instead, the alleged deficiency is directly
resultant from adjustments to the Form 1065 filed
by BDB Associates. Clearly, adjustments to BDB's
return are not excepted from the operation of the
statute of limitations by the restrictive
language on the Form 870-A.
Respondent's motion also notes that petitioners had not
amended their pleadings to raise any issue other than the
period of limitations issue decided in Brody I. The Court
calendared respondent's motion for summary judgment for
hearing on the same day as the case was set for trial.
Shortly before trial and hearing on respondent's
motion, petitioners filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment in which they raise for a second time the issue
that was considered and decided in Brody I, that is,
whether the notice of deficiency was issued within the
period of limitations on assessment and collection
described by section 6501(a). Petitioners' cross-motion
states as follows:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011