-2-
of this case for lack of jurisdiction,1 we decide whether
petitioners underreported their gross income by $15,496; i.e.,
the total amount of the remaining 6 deposits. We hold they did
not.2 Section references are to the applicable versions of the
Internal Revenue Code, Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules
of Practice and Procedure, and dollar amounts are rounded.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some facts were stipulated. The parties’ stipulation of
facts and the exhibits submitted therewith are incorporated
herein by this reference. Petitioners are husband and wife, and
they resided in Phoenix, Arizona, when their petition was filed.
They have at least two children (Melissa and Joshua).
Petitioners filed a joint 1995 Federal income tax return on
or about September 9, 1996. They reported on that return that
their gross income consisted of $30,000 of business income and
$54 of dividend income, and they reported and paid $5,915 in
Federal income tax with respect thereto. They reported on their
1 Specifically, petitioners had moved to dismiss the portion
of this case that concerned partnership items which respondent
conceded were included erroneously in the notice of deficiency.
See Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783 (1986) (partnership
items must be readjusted in a unified partnership level
proceeding brought under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility
Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, and
cannot be considered in a proceeding brought under sec. 6213(a)
to redetermine a deficiency).
2 On the basis of this holding, we also hold that
petitioners are not liable for the accuracy-related penalty
determined by respondent as it relates to the bank deposits.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011