Zinovy V. Reytblatt and Natalia B. Romalis-Reytblatt - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
          The issues raised by the notice of deficiency are (1) whether               
          petitioners had unreported income from various sources and (2)              
          whether petitioners are entitled to a loss claimed on Schedule C,           
          Profit or Loss From Business.  Petitioners resided in Bridgeport,           
          Connecticut, at the time the petition was filed.                            
               We have combined to a great extent our findings of fact and            
          conclusions of law because of the confused state of the record.             
               This case was calendared for trial on March 5, 2001, in                
          Hartford, Connecticut, and was recalled on March 7, 2001.  At the           
          recall, Michelle B. O’Connor, Esq. (Ms. O’Connor), from the                 
          Quinnipiac University School of Law Tax Clinic entered an                   
          appearance on behalf of petitioners, and a stipulation of facts             
          was executed by Ms. O’Connor and petitioner Zinovy V. Reytblatt             
          (hereafter petitioner).  The stipulation of facts provided, inter           
          alia, that with respect to the 1996 tax return (1) petitioner               
          Natalia B. Romalis-Reytblatt received nonemployee compensation of           
          $1,200 that was not reported; (2) petitioners erroneously                   
          reported an additional $1,200 in wage income; (3) petitioner                
          received nonemployee compensation of $1,300 that was not                    
          reported; (4) petitioners received dividend income of $62 and               
          interest income of $334 that were not reported; (5) petitioners             
          received $57 from an annuity that was not reported; (6)                     
          petitioners were not entitled to a Schedule C loss of $11,833;              








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011