Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al - Page 208




                                       - 28 -                                         

          deductions in excess of Kersting interest deductions that the               
          Richardses actually claimed.17                                              
               Similarly, as observed in the Court's Dixon II opinion,                
          respondent's alternative determinations in the notice of                    
          deficiency issued to the Cravenses overstated their deficiency              
          for 1980.  The Court ordered that the Cravenses' deficiency for             
          1980 be reduced to account for:  (1) The elimination of                     
          respondent's alternative determination that the Cravenses failed            
          to report $18,000 in dividends paid by Candace; and (2)                     
          respondent's failure to eliminate the capital gain of $7,200                
          reported by the Cravenses for 1980 on the disposition of their              
          Candace stock.                                                              
          III. Commencement of Kersting Project                                       
          A.   Tax Shelter Projects and Test Case Procedures                          
               1.   Overview                                                          
               The large volume of cases generated by the Commissioner's              
          disallowances of deductions claimed by taxpayers participating in           
          large tax shelter programs during the late 1970's and early                 
          1980's created the largest inventory of cases ever docketed in              
          the Tax Court.  Among the responses of the Internal Revenue                 
          Service and the Tax Court were the development of procedures that           

          17  Test case petitioners Terry D. and Gloria K. Owens                      
          alleged in their petition that respondent disallowed legitimate             
          interest deductions in their notice of deficiency.  However, it             
          appears that the allegation was not pursued by or on behalf of              
          the Owenses, inasmuch as the decision entered by the Court in               
          their case, following the issuance of the Court's opinion in                
          Dixon II, was consistent with the deficiency determined by                  
          respondent.                                                                 

Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011