Thomas E. Johnston and Thomas E. Johnston, Successor in Interest to Shirley L. Johnston, Deceased - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
               On March 19, 2003, the parties filed a stipulation of                  
          settled issues, which reserved the issue of whether petitioners             
          “can offset tax deficiencies * * * through net operating loss               
          carry forwards or carrybacks.”                                              
               On April 22, 2003, which was after respondent had accepted             
          petitioners’ qualified offer, petitioners filed an amendment to             
          petition in each docket in which petitioners claimed deductions             
          for the NOLs in question.  After the supplemental pleadings were            
          closed, respondent filed the subject Motion for Summary Judgment,           
          which petitioners now challenge.                                            
          I.  Summary Judgment                                                        
               Petitioners do not challenge as a procedural matter                    
          respondent’s motion for summary judgment, see Rule 121(a) and               
          (b), and it appears that all prerequisites for summary                      
          adjudication have been satisfied, id.; Rule 121(d).                         
          II.  Contentions of the Parties                                             
               Respondent contends that respondent’s acceptance of                    
          petitioners’ qualified offer completely resolved the issue of               
          petitioners’ liabilities for the 1989, 1991, and 1992 tax years.            
          Respondent asserts that petitioners are not now able to raise new           
          issues relating to their 1989, 1991, and 1992 liabilities.                  
               Petitioners contend that petitioners’ qualified offer                  
          included only items in dispute in the cases at the time the offer           

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011