Joseph P. and Mary B. McDonald - Page 3




                                        - 2 -                                         
               In separate notices of deficiency, respondent determined               
          that petitioners are liable for the following additions to tax              
          for the respective taxable years:                                           
               Year   Sec. 6653(a)(1)       Sec. 6653(a)(2)       Sec. 6661(a)        
          1983        $764                 $15,285*             $3,821                
               1984          18                     359*               ---            
               * 50 percent of the interest due on $15,285 and $359                   
               for 1983 and 1984, respectively.                                       
          The issues for decision are whether petitioners are liable for              
          each of these additions to tax.1                                            
                                   Background                                         
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are                      
          incorporated herein by this reference.  Petitioners resided in              
          Sparta, New Jersey, on the date the petition was filed in this              
          case.                                                                       
               Petitioner husband (Mr. McDonald) is a physician.  During              
          1983 and 1984, he operated a sole proprietorship as a physician,            
          taking in gross receipts of $244,555 and $290,653 for a profit of           
          $172,252 and $204,704, respectively.  He started this business in           
          1979, and approximately 1 year later he was referred to an                  
          accountant named Paul Trimboli.  Mr. Trimboli assisted                      

          1In the petition, petitioners argued (1) that the deficiency                
          upon which the additions to tax are based is incorrect, and (2)             
          that petitioners “believe the statute of limitations has                    
          expired.”  Petitioners did not address these issues at trial or             
          in their posttrial memorandum of authorities.  We therefore                 
          consider them to have been abandoned, and we need not address               
          them here.                                                                  




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011