Robert D. Aronfeld - Page 3




                                        - 2 -                                         

               Respondent determined deficiencies of $4,859, $279, and                
          $3,812 in petitioner's Federal income taxes for 1995, 1996, and             
          1997, respectively, and accuracy-related penalties under section            
          6662(a) of $46.20 and $756.46, respectively, for 1995 and 1997.             
               After concessions by respondent,2 the issues for decision              
          are: (1) Whether the statute of limitations under section 6501(a)           
          bars respondent from making assessments against petitioner for              
          the 3 years at issue; (2) whether certain adjustments to                    
          petitioner's income for the 3 years at issue are correct; (3)               
          whether petitioner is entitled to itemized deductions for 1995              
          and for Schedule C trade or business expense deductions for 1996            
          in excess of amounts allowed by respondent; and (4) whether                 
          petitioner is liable for the section 6662(a) penalty for the year           
          1997.3                                                                      

               2    On brief, respondent conceded that the disallowed                 
          itemized deductions of $9,770 for 1995 should be reduced to                 
          $4,142, that the disallowed Schedule C car and truck expenses of            
          $14,141 for 1996 should be reduced to $11,831, and that                     
          petitioner was not liable for the sec. 6662(a) penalty for 1995.            
               3    Prior to trial, petitioner filed motions for entry of             
          decision in both docketed cases based on a letter from                      
          respondent's Memphis, Tennessee, office that stated that, for               
          petitioner's 1995 and 1996 tax years, there was no tax, interest,           
          or penalties due.  Respondent filed objections, which the Court             
          sustained.  On brief, petitioner reasserted his claim.  Although            
          that issue was resolved by the Court prior to trial, the Court              
          notes that petitioner's claim has no merit.  The letter                     
          petitioner relies on does not relate to the 1997 tax year, and,             
          moreover, with respect to the 1995 and 1996 tax years,                      
          petitioner's account would not show any amount owing because the            
                                                             (continued...)           





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011