John J. Kaiser and Sofia P. Kaiser - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         

          from an activity entitled "Computer Books + Tapes" claimed on               
          Schedule C of their 1980 and 1981 returns.                                  
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulation of facts is incorporated herein by reference, and           
          they are found accordingly.  Petitioners resided in Briarcliff              
          Manor, New York, at the time they filed their petitions.                    
          1.  Whether All Issues Have Been "Resolved" and "Settled"                   
               Preliminarily, we address petitioners' contention that they            
          have "settled" and "resolved" all issues in the instant case.               
          Petitioners argue that they previously reached agreement with               
          respondent concerning all issues in the instant case and that               
          they previously submitted checks to respondent in full                      
          satisfaction of all taxes and interest owed for the years in                
          issue.  Petitioners point to certain payments they allege to have           
          been made to the Internal Revenue Service which, petitioners                
          allege, "totally resolved" all issues in the instant case.                  
          Respondent argues that although petitioners may have made                   
          payments, such payments were applied to taxable years other than            
          those at issue in the instant case, and, in any event, that                 
          payments made by petitioners after the notice of deficiency is              
          mailed do not affect our jurisdiction to decide the correctness             
          of the asserted deficiencies and income tax overpayments.                   
               We agree with respondent.  Petitioners misunderstand the               
          purpose of the instant proceedings.  Respondent determined                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011