- 3 - should be adjusted to account for additional interest deductions beyond those claimed on its original Federal income tax returns; (3) whether the Johnstons failed to report a $45,483 lump-sum payment pursuant to a noncompetition agreement with Burien Nissan; (4) whether the Johnstons should have reported $290,000 of income in 1995 pursuant to a noncompetition agreement between Mr. Johnston and Matthew B. West, Inc.; and (5) whether Burien Nissan and the Johnstons are liable for the accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a). FINDINGS OF FACT4 Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Burien Nissan’s mailing address was in Seattle, Washington, 4Burien Nissan and the Johnstons ignored Rule 151(e)(3), which provides, in part: In an answering or reply brief, the party shall set forth any objections, together with the reasons therefor, to any proposed findings of any other party, showing the numbers of the statements to which the objections are directed; in addition, the party may set forth alternative proposed findings of fact. Under the circumstances, we have assumed that Burien Nissan and the Johnstons do not object to respondent’s proposed findings of fact except to the extent that their statements on brief are clearly inconsistent therewith, in which event we have resolved the inconsistencies based on our understanding of the record as a whole. See Gleave v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-276 n.3; see also Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 412, 413 n.2 (1993).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