- 11 -
understatements. Applying the 20-percent rate to the
deficiencies, respondent determined penalties of $108,038 for
1996 and $102,373 for 1997.
Petitioner timely filed an original petition and an amended
petition with this Court. In his amended petition, petitioner
argued that all adjustments respondent made were erroneous.
Petitioner claimed his trusts were valid, and that the grantor
trust rules do not apply because he held neither legal nor
equitable title to the trust assets. Petitioner in his amended
petition also asserted the “Delpit” issue: that the Tax Court
lacks jurisdiction over his petition because respondent made the
determination without sending him a 30-day letter, without
advising him of his administrative rights, and without giving him
an opportunity for adequate administrative review. According to
petitioner’s counsel: “This denial has cost Petitioner undue
burden of Tax Court litigation that could have been resolved
administratively.”
The trial of this case occurred over 2 days, separated by
more than 5 months. This delay was caused in large part by the
failure of petitioner’s counsel to organize in coherent fashion
the exhibits she wished to include in the second of three
stipulations of fact. The first and third stipulations of fact,
prepared primarily by respondent, were filed with the Court at
the beginning of the first day of trial; the second stipulation
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