David L. Wiksell and Margaret Ann Carpender - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
                SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION                  
               NIMS, Judge:  This case is before the Court on remand from             
          the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Wiksell v.                     
          Commissioner, 90 F.3d 1459 (9th Cir. 1996), revg. and remanding             
          T.C. Memo. 1994-99.                                                         
               Respondent has conceded all additions to tax as to                     
          petitioner Margaret Ann Carpender (petitioner or Margaret).                 
          Margaret has conceded that deficiencies in the amounts of                   
          $221,294 and $789,919 asserted in respondent's amended answer for           
          taxable years 1984 and 1985, respectively, are correct.                     
               All section references are to sections of the Internal                 
          Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, unless otherwise             
          indicated.  All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of               
          Practice and Procedure.                                                     
               In Wiksell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-99, an order of            
          dismissal and decision was entered against petitioner David L.              
          Wiksell (David) by reason of his default.  David did not file an            
          appeal.  The caption herein has not been changed to reflect this            
          fact since David and Margaret jointly filed the petition.                   
               On appeal, petitioner challenged our determination that she            
          was not an innocent spouse within the meaning of section 6013(e).           
          The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that "Because               
          there is a significant void in the evidence which links Appellant           
          to much, if not the majority, of the understatement and its                 






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011