Thomas E. Johnston and Thomas E. Johnston, Successor in Interest to Shirley L. Johnston, Deceased - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
                    Held:  The parties entered into a contract to                     
               settle the docketed cases, as evidenced by Ps’                         
               qualified offer and R’s acceptance of that offer.                      
                    Held, further, Ps are not now allowed to reduce                   
               the amounts stated in the qualified offer for the years                
               at issue by the amount of NOLs sustained in the 1988,                  
               1990, 1993, and 1995 tax years.                                        


               Lorraine G. Howell and Kenneth M. Barish, for petitioners.             
               Nicholas J. Richards and Kevin W. Coy, for respondent.                 


                                 SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION                                 

               NIMS, Judge:  Respondent determined the following                      
          deficiencies and penalties with respect to petitioners’ Federal             
          income taxes:                                                               

                                                           Penalties                  
                Petitioner       Year  Deficiency  Sec. 6662(a)  Sec. 6663            
          Thomas E. Johnston and *1989  $1,546,160    $309,232    $1,159,620           
          * * Shirley L. Johnston,                                                    
          Deceased                                                                    
             Docket No. 26005-96                                                      
          Thomas E. Johnston     1991    289,396       --         217,047             
             Docket No. 2266-97  1992    341,908       --         256,431             

          By answer respondent also asserted increased deficiencies and               
          penalties in docket Nos. 26005-96 and 2266-97.                              
               These consolidated cases are presently before the Court on             
          respondent’s motion for summary judgment filed on September 2,              







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011