- 2 -
pursuant to Rule 122. We must decide the following issues: (1)
Whether petitioners are entitled to exclude disability payments
from income under section 105(c) or some other provision. We
hold they are not. (2) Whether petitioners are liable for the
accuracy-related penalty as determined by respondent. We hold
they are not.
At the time of filing the petition, petitioners resided in
Oak Hill, West Virginia.
In his opening brief, William T. Kees (petitioner) offered
both a substantive argument with respect to the deficiency and a
request for the “exclusion” of petitioner Kathryn A. Kees (Mrs.
Kees) from the instant case. Petitioner’s request for the
exclusion of Mrs. Kees is based on the assertion that, in
finalizing their divorce, she and petitioner had agreed that he
would be responsible for any tax liabilities arising from the
instant case. We shall treat petitioner’s request for the
exclusion of Mrs. Kees as petitioners’ motion to dismiss with
respect to Mrs. Kees, and we shall treat the remainder of the
document as petitioners’ opening brief.
The notice of deficiency was issued jointly to petitioners,
as they had filed a joint return for the year in issue.
Petitioners jointly filed a petition and an amended petition in
this Court, and Mrs. Kees has signed jointly with petitioner
several subsequent filings, although not the opening brief.2
2 Along with petitioner, Mrs. Kees signed a joint
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011