- 4 -
5. whether petitioner Henry Misle is liable for an addition
to tax under section 6654 for failure to make estimated tax
payments for tax year 1995.
FINDINGS OF FACT4
Most of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
Stipulations of Fact Nos. 1 and 2 are incorporated into our
opinion by this reference.
A. Background
Petitioners Henry Misle (Henry or HM) and Esther Misle
(Esther) are husband and wife who resided in Lincoln, Nebraska,
at the time the petitions at docket Nos. 14157-97, 16657-98, and
16658-98 were filed. HJA, Inc. (HJA), is a corporation which had
its principal place of business in Lincoln, Nebraska, at the time
the petition at docket No. 22920-97 was filed. For the years at
4Contrary to Rule 151(e), which governs the form and content
of briefs submitted to the Tax Court, petitioners Henry and
Esther Misle failed to include, among other things, proposed
findings of fact in their opening brief. Instead, petitioners
Henry and Esther Misle set forth their proposed findings of fact
in their reply brief. Presenting proposed findings of fact for
the first time in a reply brief strips opposing parties of the
opportunity to make objections to those proposed findings of
fact. Because petitioners Henry and Esther Misle failed to
include proposed findings of fact in their opening brief, as
required by Rule 151(e), we do not consider them. By failing to
follow the Court’s Rules, “petitioners have assumed the risk that
we have not considered the record in a light of their own
illumination.” Monico v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-10.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011