Robert E. and Yvonne R. Kovacevich - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
               In 1991, a former client, Terry Stokke, sued petitioner for            
          allegedly committing fraud with respect to a pooled investment.             
          Petitioner settled the lawsuit in 1992 for $39,000 and reported             
          this amount as a Schedule C expense on their 1992 tax return.               
               At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in             
          Spokane, Washington.                                                        
                                       OPINION                                        
          I.   Jurisdiction                                                           
               On October 18, 2000, the Court filed petitioners’ Motion To            
          Dismiss “Wages” Issue In 1992 For Lack Of Jurisdiction, in which            
          petitioners contended that Western’s 1995 payment of $22,583.20             
          in income tax withholding discharged petitioners’ tax liability             
          relating to petitioners’ 1992 unreported wages.  We disagree.               
          Congress has specifically given this Court jurisdiction to                  
          redetermine a deficiency if a valid notice of deficiency has been           
          issued and a petition has been timely filed.  Secs. 6212(a),                
          6213(a), and 6214(a); Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93            
          T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142,              
          147 (1988).  Therefore, petitioners’ motion will be denied.                 
               Petitioners further contend that the notice of deficiency is           
          invalid because respondent did not make a determination.  In                
          support of their position, petitioners state that “the                      
          unexplained arrows and rounding of * * * [the amounts of the                
          deficiencies] indicate vagueness.”  In the notice, respondent               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011