- 2 -
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioners
underreported their capital gains from the redemption of certain
corporate stock; (2) whether Tony L. Zidar conducted his stock
car activity with the intent to make a profit; and (3) whether
petitioners are subject to the section 6662(a) accuracy-related
penalty.2
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties have stipulated some of the facts, which we
incorporate herein by this reference.
Petitioners
Throughout the year in issue, petitioners were married to
one another. In 1993 they separated, and in 1994 they divorced.
When they petitioned the Court, petitioners resided in Wisconsin.
Concrete Raising Corporation
In the early 1970's, Tony L. Zidar (Tony) started a business
known as Concrete Raising Associates (CRA). CRA’s business
2 In their petition and at trial, petitioners contended that
Kathleen I. Zidar (Kathleen) had not been served with the notice
of deficiency. Although respondent addressed the issue in his
opening brief, petitioners have not mentioned the issue either in
their opening brief or in their reply brief, and we consider them
to have abandoned this contention. See Bradley v. Commissioner,
100 T.C. 367, 370 (1993). In any event, the contention is
without merit, as the record shows that respondent mailed the
notice of deficiency to Kathleen’s last known address, that
Kathleen received actual notice, and that she timely filed a
petition with the Court. Cf. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C.
65 (1983); Freiling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42 (1983); Judge v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-527.
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