Thomas Gerald Roots and Linda Vesta Roots - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         

          tax, was timely executed by petitioners on November 27, 1995, and           
          by respondent on December 6, 1995.  A second Form 872, extending            
          to December 31, 1997, the time to assess tax, was timely executed           
          by petitioners on October 15, 1996, and by respondent on October            
          24, 1996.                                                                   
               Respondent asserts that a third Form 872, extending to June            
          30, 1998, the time to assess tax was timely executed by                     
          petitioners on March 14, 1997, and by respondent on March 19,               
          1997.  Petitioners deny having executed this Form 872.  Indeed,             
          they assert that "each of them, to the best of their knowledge              
          and belief, [has] never been presented in any way, manner, shape,           
          or form, with a request to extend the time of statute [sic] till            
          6/30/98."                                                                   
               Respondent sent a notice of deficiency to petitioners on               
          June 5, 1998.  Petitioners filed a timely petition from this                
          notice of deficiency on August 25, 1998.  It appears that the               
          major item of dispute on the merits is whether $511,522 of gain             
          on disposition of rental property is properly reportable for                
          1991, as respondent determined in the notice of deficiency, or              
          for 1992, as petitioners contend.                                           
                                     Discussion                                       
               Petitioners' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction                
          focuses on two matters, as follows:  (1) The notice of deficiency           
          erroneously determined that the income in question was reportable           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011