Marci L. and Carl C. Voigt - Page 5

                                        - 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          Moreover, in making his original (withdrawn) jurisdictional                 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