- 6 - On December 9, 1999, respondent spoke with petitioner about the documentation. Petitioner acknowledged that the transaction was probably his, but he wanted to review his records. Respondent faxed all the documents to petitioner. On January 3, 2000, respondent spoke to petitioner, who agreed to the additional income provided his basis was taken into account for computation of taxable gain. Respondent asked petitioner to provide records to substantiate his basis in the note. Petitioner sent substantiation of the basis to respondent. Among other things, petitioner's records indicated that the account was with Dean Witter. Apparently, the revised capital gain income, taking into account petitioner’s basis, did not result in a deficiency after subtracting the standard deduction and the exemption amount. At the call of this case from the trial calendar on January 31, 2000, respondent reported as a basis of settlement that petitioner did not have a deficiency in income tax for 1996 and was not liable for any additions to tax. The Court entered a decision accordingly. Respondent contends that respondent's position was substantially justified and states that if petitioner had been forthcoming with the documentation in response to the 30-day letter, then this proceeding in this Court would have been unnecessary. We agree with respondent. Whenever there is a factual determination, respondent is notPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011