- 2 -
In Martin II, we affirmed respondent’s determination to
proceed with collection by levy, and, as relevant to our
discussion herein, we concluded that although the petition filed
on petitioner’s behalf in Martin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2000-187 (Martin I), affd. on other grounds 38 Fed. Appx. 980
(4th Cir. 2002), was unauthorized and petitioner’s copy of the
joint notice of deficiency was not attached, the petition placed
a “proceeding in respect of the deficiency” on this Court’s
docket and suspended the statutory limitations period for
assessment (the limitations period).
In his motion, petitioner alleges that our opinion in Martin
II “made material factual errors in conflict with the facts found
in [Martin I]” and “made material errors in analysis of the cases
relied upon by both parties”. This Supplemental Memorandum
Opinion addresses those allegations.
Background
We adopt the findings of fact in our prior Memorandum
Opinion, Martin II. For convenience and clarity, we repeat below
the facts necessary for the disposition of this motion.
On April 15, 1981, petitioner and his wife at the time,
Amilu, filed a joint Federal income tax return for 1980 (the 1980
joint return). On June 7, 1988, respondent issued notices of
deficiency to petitioner and Amilu with respect to the 1980 joint
return. On September 6, 1988, Jeffrey Berg, an attorney
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011