Carolyn M. Fankhanel - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          He lived with his father during 1983 and during the majority of             
          1984.  Petitioner provided no support for Syme during the time he           
          lived with his father.                                                      
               Zachary lived with petitioner until he moved out of her                
          house in January 1988.  In August 1988, Zachary began college in            
          Colorado.  In 1988, petitioner's father, Warren Fankhanel,                  
          provided $4,000 so that Zachary could attend college.  In 1989,             
          petitioner's father provided an additional $13,000 towards                  
          Zachary’s college.  In May 1990, Zachary graduated from college.            
          Zachary was a full-time student during 1988, 1989, and 1990.  He            
          earned wage income of $8,234 in 1990.                                       
                                       OPINION                                        
          I.  Introduction                                                            
               Petitioner has assigned error to respondent’s determination            
          of deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner’s Federal income           
          taxes for the years in question.  Petitioner states that the                
          entire deficiency for each year is in controversy.  In support of           
          her assignments of error, petitioner avers that (1) the amounts             
          stated as gross and taxable income in the deficiency notice are             
          incorrect, (2) petitioner is entitled to the normal business                
          deductions for the years in issue, (3) petitioner is entitled to            
          the normal personal deductions associated with the years in                 
          issue, and (4) because no deficiencies exist, no additions to tax           
          apply.  Petitioner also raises as a defense the claim that this             
          Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case because respondent’s             




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