- 5 -
the deficiency. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to
redetermine the deficiency and to determine the amount of any
overpayment. See secs. 6214(a), 6512(b)(1), 7442. As explained
more fully below, our jurisdiction extends to the entire subject
matter of petitioners’ correct tax for their 2000 tax year and
encompasses their contention that they never received part of
their claimed 2000 refund. See Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.
527, 532-535 (1985).
B. Adequacy of the Pleadings
In his motion for entry of decision, respondent contends
that petitioners did not plead the disputed refund issue and
accordingly “should not be allowed to raise new issues at the
calendar call”. As stated in Rule 31(a): “The purpose of the
pleadings is to give the parties and the Court fair notice of the
matters in controversy and the basis for their respective
positions.” It is evident that respondent had fair notice of
petitioners’ contention regarding the disputed refund:
respondent’s counsel addressed the issue in both his June 5,
2003, trial memorandum, which he submitted to the Court about 2
weeks before the scheduled trial session, and in a conference
call with the parties and the Court before the scheduled trial
session. In neither instance did respondent complain about
petitioners’ failure to plead the disputed refund issue.
Moreover, in making his original (withdrawn) jurisdictional
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011