Wm. Dennis Gray - Page 7




                                        - 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 not           






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011