Nestle Holdings, Inc. - Page 4




                                                - 4 -                                                  
            to the Rule 155 computations (1996 stipulation) was filed.  In                             
            order to understand the reason for this stipulation, we describe                           
            various actions previously undertaken by petitioner.  During the                           
            litigation, petitioner filed with respondent Form 1139,                                    
            Corporation Application for Tentative Refund, requesting                                   
            tentative refunds attributable to carrying back a variety of net                           
            operating losses (NOL's), business credits, and net capital                                
            losses generated in post-1985 tax years to the 1983 and 1984 tax                           
            years (initial tentative refunds).  See sec. 6411.  Respondent                             
            allowed those refunds.                                                                     
                  On July 26, 1996, before the parties filed their Rule 155                            
            computations and proposed decision documents, petitioner filed a                           
            motion to strike paragraphs 4(cw) and 5(bt)(i) of its petition.                            
            Through the motion, petitioner sought to clarify that the amounts                          
            carried back to the 1983 and 1984 tax years (and any resulting                             
            adjustments) were not in issue before the Court.  See infra 1996                           
            stipulation.                                                                               
                  Respondent did not object to the motion.  The Court                                  
            granted petitioner’s motion.  For the purposes of this opinion,                            
            we interpret the “not in issue” terminology to mean that                                   
            petitioner did not seek to have this Court establish whether the                           
            carrybacks which led to the initial tentative refunds were                                 










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011