- 3 -
have been included in gross income; and (3) whether petitioners
Russell E. Ballantyne and Clarice Ballantyne are liable for the
accuracy-related penalties pursuant to section 6662(a)2 for 1994
and 1995 with respect to certain adjustments contained in the
notice of deficiency.
FINDINGS OF FACT3
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts, the stipulations of settled issues, and
the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioner Jean S. Ballantyne (Jean), who is the surviving spouse
of Melvin W. Ballantyne (Melvin) and the executrix for the Estate
of Melvin W. Ballantyne (the estate), resided in Minot, North
Dakota, at the time the petition in docket No. 14848-99 was
filed. At that time, the estate was under the jurisdiction of
2Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all
Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
3Russell and Clarice failed to comply with Rule 151(e)(3),
which requires that “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”. Under the circumstances, we have assumed that Russell
and Clarice do not object to respondent’s or the estate’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 on the basis of our
understanding of the record as a whole. Estate of Jung v.
Commissioner, 101 T.C. 412, 413 n.2 (1993); Burien Nissan, Inc.
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-116 n.4.
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