Estate of James T. Callaway, Deceased, Elizabeth N. Callaway, Executrix, and Elizabeth N. Callaway - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         

               On July 16, 1996 (presumably after abating the above-                  
          described assessments entered in August and September 1993),                
          respondent entered identical assessments against petitioners                
          reflecting computational adjustments to account for the                     
          disallowance of decedent's distributive share of Mountain View's            
          partnership items for the taxable years 1986, 1987, and 1988.               
               On August 5, 1996, respondent issued notices of deficiency             
          to petitioners determining various additions to tax, including              
          delinquent filing of returns, negligence, and valuation                     
          overstatements for the taxable years 1986, 1987, and 1988.  The             
          additions to tax are based upon adjustments to petitioners' tax             
          liability arising from the disallowance of decedent's                       
          distributive share of Mountain View partnership items.                      
          Petitioners invoked the Court's jurisdiction by filing a timely             
          petition for redetermination.                                               
               After filing their petition, petitioners filed a motion to             
          restrain collection asserting that respondent had failed to                 
          timely assess and was improperly attempting to collect the                  
          underlying tax deficiencies attributable to the disallowance of             
          decedent's distributive share of Mountain View's partnership                
          items.  Respondent filed an objection to petitioners' motion to             
          restrain collection asserting that the Court lacks jurisdiction             
          to restrain respondent's collection efforts under the                       
          circumstances presented.  In further response, however,                     





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