- 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