Richard L. and Kathryn Dyckman - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         

               Respondent issued a so-called affected items notice of                 
          deficiency for the taxable year 1982.  In the notice, respondent            
          determined that petitioners were liable for (1) additions to tax            
          for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) and (a)(2) in the amounts           
          of $492 and 50 percent of the interest due on $9,835,                       
          respectively, and (2) an addition to tax for valuation                      
          overstatement under section 6659 in the amount of $2,436.                   
               After concessions by petitioners,2 the issues for decision             
          are as follows:                                                             
               (1) Whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax for            
          negligence or intentional disregard of rules or regulations under           
          section 6653(a)(1) and (2).  We hold that they are not.                     
               (2) Whether petitioners are liable for the addition to tax             
          for underpayment of tax attributable to valuation overstatement             
          under section 6659.  We hold that they are.                                 


                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so                
          found.  Petitioners resided in Toms River, New Jersey, at the               
          time that their petition was filed with the Court.                          
               During the year in issue, petitioners were both 55 years               
          old.  During the preceding 30 years, petitioner husband (Mr.                

          2  Petitioners concede that partnership assets valued at                    
          $1,750,000 did not have a value exceeding $50,000.  Further,                
          petitioners raised a statute of limitations issue in their                  
          petition, but petitioners appear to have abandoned that issue.              
          Nevertheless, we observe that the notice of deficiency was timely           
          issued.  See sec. 6229(d), (g).                                             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011