- 4 -
material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of
law. As explained below, we shall grant respondent’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
Background
On March 17, 1997, respondent issued a joint notice of
deficiency to Harold F. Behling (petitioner) and his wife. In
the notice, respondent determined a deficiency of $5,179 in their
Federal income tax for the taxable year 1993. The deficiency was
based on respondent’s disallowance of a flow-through loss claimed
by petitioner in respect of Behling Automotive, Inc., an S
corporation (hereinafter the S corporation). In this regard,
respondent determined that petitioner had previously exhausted
his basis in the S corporation.
On March 24, 1997, petitioner wrote a letter to respondent
referencing the notice of deficiency. In the letter, petitioner
stated that he wished to file an amended return for 1993 and
requested a further explanation of the determined deficiency. On
May 2, 1997, respondent wrote to petitioner informing him that
his proposed amended return would not change respondent’s
determination in the notice of deficiency and that the time for
filing a petition for redetermination with the Tax Court would
expire on June 17, 1997. Petitioner did not file a petition with
the Court challenging the notice of deficiency. Accordingly, on
August 1, 1997, respondent assessed the deficiency (and statutory
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011