- 2 -
Michael J. Fitzpatrick, pro se.
Patrick E. Whelan and Daniel K. O'Brien, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
LARO, Judge: Michael J. Fitzpatrick petitioned the Court to
redetermine the following determinations of deficiencies and
additions to tax:
Additions to Tax
Sec. Sec. Sec.
Year Deficiency 6653(b) 6653(b)(1) 6653(b)(2)
1981 1$30,601 $15,301 --- ---
1982 96,418 --- $48,209 50% of the
interest due
on $96,418
1The parties stipulated that the deficiency for 1981 should
be reduced by $17,253.
Following our decision in Fitzpatrick v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1995-548,1 the issues before the Court are as follows:
1 In Fitzpatrick v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-548, the
Court decided that: (1) Respondent was not collaterally or
equitably estopped from issuing a notice of deficiency due to the
earlier issuance of the no-change letter to petitioner for the
same tax years; (2) the notice of deficiency was not in violation
of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (3)
petitioner is collaterally estopped from denying his
participation in the bribery scheme; and (4) petitioner is
collaterally estopped from denying that there is an underpayment
of his income tax, and that some part of the underpayment is due
to fraud for purposes of sec. 6653(b), for each of the years 1981
and 1982.
Sec. 6653(b)(2) requires respondent to establish the
specific portion of the underpayment of tax which is attributable
to fraud for purposes of applying the "50 percent of the interest
payable" provision. Cooney v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-50.
Since we decided in Fitzpatrick v. Commissioner, supra, that
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011