Glen L. Wittstadt, Jr. and Lynne M. Wittstadt - Page 28

                                        - 28 -                                         
          redetermined in our Decision, see sec. 7485(a),16 and respondent             
          was not unreasonable to have done so.                                        
               On June 21, 1996, the Court of Appeals decided Adler v.                 
          Commissioner, supra.  Petitioners contend that it was                        
          unreasonable for respondent to pursue further collection after               
          that date.  In contrast, we conclude that it was unreasonable for            
          respondent to pursue further collection after October 1, 1996.17             


               16   Sec. 7485 provides, in relevant part, as follows:                  
               SEC. 7485 BOND TO STAY ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION.                       
                    (a) Upon Notice of Appeal.--Notwithstanding any                    
               provision of law imposing restrictions on the                           
               assessment and collection of deficiencies, the review                   
               under section 7483 shall not operate as a stay of                       
               assessment or collection of any portion of the amount                   
               of the deficiency determined by the Tax Court unless a                  
               notice of appeal in respect of such portion is duly                     
               filed by the taxpayer, and then only if the taxpayer--                  
                         (1) on or before the time his notice of                       
                    appeal is filed has filed with the Tax Court a                     
                    bond in a sum fixed by the Tax Court not exceeding                 
                    double the amount of the portion of the deficiency                 
                    in respect of which the notice of appeal is filed,                 
                    and with surety approved by the Tax Court,                         
                    conditioned upon the payment of the deficiency as                  
                    finally determined, together with any interest,                    
                    additional amounts, or additions to the tax                        
                    provided for by law * * *                                          
               17   We need not decide whether it was unreasonable for                 
          respondent to pursue further collection between June 21, 1996,               
          and Oct. 1, 1996, because that issue appears to be moot.  In this            
          regard, we note that during such period petitioners did not incur            
          any attorney's fees and that the only cost in respect of which               
          petitioners seek reimbursement appears to represent a $65 payment            
          for Westlaw service related to petitioners' reply brief filed in             
          the Court of Appeals before Adler v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 378               
          (4th Cir. 1996), was decided.  Cf. Estate of Perry v.                        
                                                              (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011