- 3 -
pursuant to Rule 141(a),2 and shall refer to the consolidated
cases in the singular in this opinion.
The issues for decision are:
(1) Whether, and to what extent, petitioner failed to
report income from her law practice for the years at issue;
(2) whether, and to what extent, petitioner is entitled to
business expense deductions claimed with respect to her law
practice for the years at issue;
(3) whether, and to what extent, petitioner is entitled to
net operating loss carryforward deductions claimed for the years
at issue; and
(4) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax
for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) (for 1987 and 1988), the
2For 1988, the notice of deficiency denies a deduction for
$4,028 of “Rowe Rent Expenses”, and, for 1989, it lists “Rowe
Unreported Income” of $4,200 (the Rowe adjustments). Those
amounts are included in respondent’s computation of tax
deficiencies for 1988 and 1989, as set forth in the notice of
deficiency for those years. Thomas G. Rowe (Rowe), with whom
petitioner filed joint returns for 1988 through 1990, and
respondent entered into a separate settlement of Rowe’s joint and
several tax liabilities for 1988-90. Consequently, Rowe is not a
party to this litigation. Respondent states that the Rowe
adjustments are not at issue in this case. It is not clear,
however, on what basis respondent relies in making this
statement. Although petitioner stated during the trial that she
is not claiming that she is an “innocent spouse”, there is no
indication in the record that petitioner knew about, or intended
to waive, her right to request relief under sec. 6015 regarding
the Rowe adjustments. Consequently, if respondent intends to
hold petitioner liable for the Rowe adjustments, we shall give
petitioner the opportunity to file a request for relief under
sec. 6015 before we enter a decision in this matter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011