Michael J. Fitzpatrick - Page 2

                                        - 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                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011