Nathanael Roman - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
               (4) Is petitioner liable for 1989 and 1990 for the addition            
          to tax under section 6651(a)(1)?  We hold that he is.                       
               (5) Is petitioner liable for the years at issue for the                
          accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)?  We hold that he            
          is to the extent stated herein.                                             
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT3                                   
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.4              


          3  Unless otherwise indicated, our findings of fact pertain to              
          the years at issue.                                                         
          4  Petitioner contends for the first time on brief (1) that, when           
          this case was called for trial, respondent changed the position             
          which she set forth in the stipulation of facts (stipulation)               
          that the parties had lodged before trial with respect to certain            
          exhibits of petitioner that were attached to that stipulation and           
          which related to his claims for certain charitable contributions,           
          business expenses, nonbusiness bad debts, and long-term capital             
          losses and (2) that respondent therefore violated the terms of              
          that stipulation, thereby resulting in an injustice to peti-                
          tioner.  We disagree.  The stipulation contained respondent's               
          evidentiary objections and/or statements of position with respect           
          to the stipulated exhibits of petitioner.  Respondent expressly             
          stated therein that, in stipulating that petitioner was attaching           
          certain exhibits to the stipulation, respondent does not stipu-             
          late that petitioner is entitled to any of the claimed items to             
          which the exhibits of petitioner relate.  Certain other portions            
          of the stipulation and the exhibits of petitioner attached                  
          thereto were not clear to the Court, and at the beginning of the            
          trial of this case the Court asked (1) respondent to clarify                
          certain statements in the stipulation about respondent's position           
          regarding the exhibits of petitioner that were attached to the              
          stipulation, (2) the parties to clarify certain other statements            
          about certain of those exhibits, and (3) the parties to address             
          respondent's evidentiary objections to certain of those exhibits.           
          The Court then (1) ruled on respondent's evidentiary objections             
          and excluded certain portions of the stipulation and the exhibits           
          of petitioner that were attached thereto and (2) received into              
          evidence and made a part of the record in this case the remaining           
          portions of the stipulation and the exhibits that were attached             
          thereto.                                                                    




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