- 11 -
produces a deficiency of $12,214 ($15,709 less the
$3,495 reported on the return). A seven percent
reduction of this deficiency results in a deficiency of
$11,359, far less than the deficiency in the decision
of $23,000.
The explanation for this discrepancy lies in the
fact that several Kersting participants received
notices of deficiency based on a reconstruction of
records obtained from Mr. Kersting's office in 1981.
For the year 1978, the statute of limitations would
have expired in 1982. Thus, the notice may have been
issued without access to the original return. Whatever
the reason for the discrepancy, it is clear that the
Richards did not receive any kind [of] special
treatment from Mr. McWade.
On November 8, 1996, Mr. Jones filed an entry of appearance
on behalf of petitioners and the Motion for Leave to File Motion
to Vacate Decision that is before the Court in this proceeding.10
Petitioners contend that Ms. Wynne's letter dated September 3,
1996, demonstrates that respondent did not examine their 1978 tax
return prior to issuing the notice of deficiency and that the
notice of deficiency was "wrongfully and fraudulently issued".
Relying on Scar v. Commissioner, supra, petitioners maintain that
the Court should conclude that the notice of deficiency is
invalid on the ground that respondent did not make a
determination as required under section 6212.
Respondent filed an objection to petitioners' motion.
Relying on Kantor v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d 1514, 1521-1522 (9th
10 We observe that Mr. Jones' original theory that
petitioners received a more favorable settlement than the
standard Kersting project settlement has no particular relevance
to whether the notice of deficiency is valid.
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