Ingrid Capehart - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          not entitled to any relief under section 6015.  Petitioner timely           
          filed a petition seeking review of respondent’s determination.              
          After concessions,2 the issue for decision is whether petitioner            
          is entitled to relief, in addition to that conceded by                      
          respondent, under section 6015(b), (c), or (f) for the taxable              
          years 1984, 1985, and 1986.                                                 
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The first, second, third, and fourth stipulations of facts are              
          incorporated herein by this reference.  Petitioner resided in               
          Sparks, Nevada, when her petition in this case was filed.                   


               2In the second stipulation of facts, respondent reserved an            
          objection to the admission of Exhibit 235-P, Appeals Transmittal            
          and Case Memo, on grounds of relevancy and hearsay.  At the end             
          of the trial, the Court deferred ruling on Exhibit 235-P and                
          ordered the parties to address the issue of its admissibility in            
          their posttrial briefs.  Respondent conceded on brief that                  
          Exhibit 235-P qualified as a business record under Fed. R. Evid.            
          803(6) and that, therefore, his hearsay objection is “moot”.                
          Although respondent did not concede his relevancy objection, he             
          did not pursue the objection on brief.  Consequently, we deem               
          respondent to have abandoned his relevancy objection, and we                
          admit Exhibit 235-P.                                                        
               Respondent also conceded that petitioner is entitled to                
          partial relief under sec. 6015(c).  Accordingly, respondent                 
          initially allocated half of the partnership items giving rise to            
          the understatements in issue to petitioner and half to Mr.                  
          Capehart but adjusted the allocation to take into account the tax           
          benefit to Mr. Capehart, as required by sec. 6015(d)(3)(A) and              
          (B).  See Hopkins v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 73, 82-87 (2003).  As           
          a result, respondent determined that for 1980 through 1983, none            
          of the deficiencies were allocable to petitioner and that for               
          1984 through 1986, $2,313.79, $3,070.05, and $3,407 of the                  
          deficiencies, respectively, were allocable to petitioner.                   





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