- 2 -
other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.
In so-called affected items notices of deficiency,
respondent determined additions to tax to petitioners’ Federal
income tax for the year and in the amounts as shown below:
Additions to Tax
Sec. Sec. Sec.
Year 6653(a)(1) 6653(a)(2) 26661
1983 $272 1$5,435 $1,359
1 The notice of deficiency mistakenly equates the
amount of the addition to tax with the amount of the
deficiency in income tax (see infra “J”). Prior to trial,
respondent filed an answer to claim an increased addition
to tax pursuant to sec. 6214(a). The increase, in the
amount of $7,834.69, is purely computational in nature.
2 The first page of the notice of deficiency
mistakenly references sec. 6662(d), which section is the
successor to sec. 6661 and is applicable for returns the
due date for which (determined without regard to
extensions) is after December 31, 1989. See Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-239, sec.
7721(a), (c)(2), (d), 103 Stat. 2395-2400.
After concessions by the parties,2 the issues for decision
are as follows:
(1) Whether petitioner Raymond Wiest (petitioner) is liable
for additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) for
1(...continued)
the taxable year in issue.
2 Petitioners concede that the notice of deficiency is
valid. Cf. Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987),
revg. 81 T.C. 855 (1983).
Respondent concedes, and petitioner Raymond A. Wiest does
not dispute, that pursuant to sec. 6015, petitioner Janet L.
Wiest is entitled to relief from joint and several liability for
the additions to tax.
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