- 2 -
years ending September 30, 1994, 1995, and 1996 (years at issue);
and, if not, (2) whether the notice of deficiency2 is barred
because it was mailed after the period of limitations on the
assessment of taxes had expired.
The following facts are based upon the parties’ pleadings,
memoranda, and supporting documents. See Rule 121(b). They are
stated solely for the purpose of deciding the parties’ cross-
motions for partial summary judgment, and not as findings of fact
in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).
Background
Petitioner is a corporation with its principal place of
business in Fort Pierce, Florida. During the years at issue,
petitioner was the parent company of a consolidated group of
affiliated corporations engaged in various aspects of the citrus
industry.
In 1991, petitioner agreed to purchase stock owned by R.
William Becker (Mr. Becker) in petitioner. One of the documents
evidencing the transaction, the Agreement, dated March 15, 1991,
2 The notice of deficiency determined deficiencies for
petitioner’s tax years ending Sept. 30 for 1993, 1994, and 1995
rather than 1994, 1995, and 1996, which we are identifying as the
years at issue. In 1996, petitioner sustained a net operating
loss, the amount of which is in dispute. Respondent’s denial of
a $5,307,600 amortization deduction taken by petitioner in 1996
reduced the net operating loss but did not result in a deficiency
for that year. Rather, respondent’s determination resulted in a
reduction in petitioner’s net operating loss carryback from 1996,
resulting, inter alia, in reductions in the net operating losses
in 1993 and 1995. See sec. 6501(h).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011