Duane E. Hudspath - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
               On April 24, 2002, respondent and petitioner entered into a            
          stipulation relating to the partner-level proceeding, which                 
          included the following language:                                            
                    4.  The tax treatment of petitioner’s partnership                 
               items relating to WIN Enterprise, LC and Stephens City                 
               Chiropractic, PLC will be resolved in a separate                       
               partnership proceeding conducted in accordance with the                
               TEFRA partnership procedures.                                          
                    5.  The adjustments necessary to apply the results                
               of the TEFRA partnership proceeding described in                       
               subparagraph 4 to petitioner, shall be treated as                      
               computational adjustments under I.R.C. � 6231(a)(6) and                
               assessed, credited or refunded accordingly.                            
                    6.  To the extent that the computation of                         
               petitioner’s tax liability which properly reflects the                 
               tax treatment of the partnership items relating to WIN                 
               Enterprise, LC and Stephens City Chiropractic, PLC, as                 
               determined in the TEFRA partnership proceeding                         
               described in subparagraph 4, would also result in a                    
               change in petitioner’s tax liability attributable to                   
               nonpartnership items, as previously determined in this                 
               docketed proceeding, such change may be treated as a                   
               computational adjustment under I.R.C. � 6231(a)(6) and                 
               assessed, credited or refunded accordingly.                            
          The stipulation further provided that petitioner was entitled to            
          overpayments of $716 and $709 relating to 1996 and 1997,                    
          respectively,4 and that petitioner owed no section 6662(a)                  
          accuracy-related penalties relating to those years.                         
          On April 26, 2002, this Court entered a decision that                       
          incorporated the facts stipulated by the parties as the findings            
          of the Court.                                                               


               4  The overpayments resulted from interest expense                     
          deductions relating to payments petitioner made on behalf of SCC            
          in 1996 and 1997.                                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011