Joseph W. Dorn - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          determination to collect amounts by jeopardy levy relating to               
          petitioner’s 1987-89 tax years.  The sole issue remaining for               
          decision is whether respondent’s determination was an abuse of              
          discretion.  We hold that it was not.                                       
               Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as                 
          amended.                                                                    
                                     Background                                       
          A.   Petitioner                                                             
               Petitioner resided in Naples, Florida, when he filed his               
          petition.  He was retired at the time of trial.  Before he                  
          retired, petitioner and his brothers operated Dorn Paint &                  
          Hardware Co, Inc., in Madison, Wisconsin.                                   
               Petitioner’s former wife filed for divorce in the Circuit              
          Court of Dane County, Wisconsin, in 1984.  As a result of his               
          divorce in 1987, petitioner was ordered to transfer amounts from            
          his IRA, pension plan, and profit sharing accounts to his former            
          wife.                                                                       
          B.   Petitioner’s Nonfiling of Income Tax Returns and Notice of             
               Deficiency                                                             
               Petitioner did not file income tax returns for tax years               
          1987-89.  Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner2           
          for those years, in which respondent determined, inter alia, that           


               2 The parties dispute whether petitioner received the notice           
          of deficiency for 1987-89.  For reasons discussed in the opinion            
          below, we need not decide that issue.                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011