11
petitioners' investment. See, e.g., Heasley v. Commissioner, 902
F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1990), revg. T.C. Memo. 1988-408.
In addition, petitioners argue that they acted in good faith
and disclosed sufficient information on their return, and
therefore no additions should apply under section 6653(a).
Petitioners rely on Belz Investment Co. v. Commissioner, 72 T.C.
1209 (1979), affd. 661 F.2d 76 (6th Cir. 1981); Wesley Heat
Treating Co. v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 10 (1958), affd. 267 F.2d
853 (7th Cir. 1959); Pullman, Inc. v. Commissioner, 8 T.C. 292
(1947); and Cryder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-103.
Petitioner's reliance is misplaced.
Petitioners did not provide sufficient information to
apprise respondent of their position on their return. In fact,
there is no reference on petitioners' return to the Barrister
partnerships in respect of petitioners' claimed ITC. We do not
believe that the mere listing of tax identification numbers of
the partnerships on Schedule E of their 1983 return constitutes
sufficient information to apprise respondent that there was any
issue with petitioners' treatment of the ITC.
Finally, petitioners argue that respondent has forced
petitioners to petition this Court in an attempt to discern the
basis for the deficiencies asserted against them. Petitioner's
argument seems to be that respondent should be equitably estopped
from assessing the deficiencies.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011