Michael Balice - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
               Petitioner resided in Metuchen, New Jersey, at the time he             
          filed the petition in this case.                                            
               Petitioner and Marion Balice (Ms. Balice) jointly filed a              
          Federal income tax (tax) return for the taxable year 1996 (1996             
          return).  In the 1996 return, petitioner and Ms. Balice reported,           
          inter alia, total income of $51,842, taxable income of $36,644,             
          total tax of $6,710, and tax withheld of $8,296 and claimed an              
          overpayment of tax of $1,586 and a refund of tax of $1,586.                 
               On February 14, 2003, respondent issued to petitioner and              
          Ms. Balice a notice of deficiency (notice) with respect to their            
          taxable year 1996, which they received.  In that notice,                    
          respondent determined a deficiency in, and an accuracy-related              
          penalty under section 6662(a)1 on, the tax of Ms. Balice and                
          petitioner for that year in the respective amounts of $28,625 and           
          $5,725.                                                                     
               Petitioner2 did not file a petition in the Court with                  
          respect to the notice relating to his taxable year 1996.                    
               On July 21, 2003, respondent assessed petitioner’s tax, as             
          well as an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) and               
          interest as provided by law, for his taxable year 1996.  (We                


               1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in            
          effect at all relevant times.  All Rule references are to the Tax           
          Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                                      
               2This case involves only petitioner, and not Ms. Balice.               
          For convenience, we shall hereinafter refer only to petitioner,             
          and not to petitioner and Ms. Balice.                                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011