Estate of Melvin W. Ballantyne, Deceased, Jean S. Ballantyne, Independent Executrix, and Jean S. Ballantyne - Page 3

                                        - 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                  
               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