Mark N. and Marla R. Kantor - Page 11

                                               - 11 -                                                 
           extension of the period of limitations to Mr. Goldschmidt.  On                             
           March 19, 1991, Mr. Fitzgerald renewed the request, this time                              
           directly to petitioners.  On March 21, 1991, petitioners signed                            
           and dated the Form 872, which further extended the period of                               
           limitations to June 30, 1992.  Petitioners signed a third                                  
           extension on February 26, 1992, which expired on June 30, 1993.                            
                 On June 25, 1993, respondent issued a statutory notice of                            
           deficiency to petitioners.  Petitioners filed a timely petition                            
           with the Tax Court.                                                                        
                                              OPINION                                                 
                 Respondent determined additions to tax for fraud for each of                         
           the 5 years in issue solely with respect to petitioner Mark N.                             
           Kantor.  Since we find no fraud for any of the years, we address                           
           respondent's alternative determinations of negligence, which are                           
           against petitioners jointly and severally by reason of their                               
           having filed joint income tax returns for the years in issue.                              
           Reaching these alternative determinations requires that we                                 
           address, infra p. 24, petitioners' allegation that the period of                           
           limitations expired for each of the tax years in issue because an                          
           invalid extension, Form 872, was executed.5                                                

                 5There is a minor evidentiary issue:  Petitioners submitted                          
           at trial three letters, labeled petitioners' exhibit 29, that we                           
           exclude from evidence as hearsay.  Fed. R. Evid. 802.  The                                 
           letters do not fall within the hearsay exception of "records of                            
           regularly conducted activity".  Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).  First, the                          
           letters are not entries made during the routine of a business.                             
           They were apparently specifically written at Mark's behest to his                          
                                                                         (continued...)               




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011