- 2 -
related $348,697 fraud penalty under section 6663(a).2 Following
respondent’s concession of an adjustment alleged in his amended
answer, we must decide the following four issues as to 1996:
1. Whether respondent arbitrarily or erroneously determined
that petitioner failed to report dividend income of $1,149,048.
We hold that he did not.
2. Whether petitioner is liable for the fraud penalty under
section 6663(a), and, if so, whether section 6501(c)(1) applies
to annul the 3-year period of limitations under section 6501(a).
We hold that she is and that section 6501(c)(1) annuls the 3-year
period of limitations.
3. Whether respondent’s determination is barred by judicial
estoppel. We hold that it is not.
4. Whether petitioner is entitled to relief under section
6015. We hold that she is not.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Overview
The parties submitted to the Court stipulated facts and
related exhibits. We find those stipulated facts accordingly and
incorporate those facts and exhibits herein. The Court also
deemed admitted certain matters pursuant to Rule 91(f). We
incorporate herein by this reference those matters deemed
2 Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code applicable to the relevant years, and Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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