- 15 -
petitioners would suffer an unconscionable injury because of
their reliance on respondent’s concession at trial. Although
petitioners did not file a brief in response, the record in its
entirety fails to demonstrate that petitioners suffered an
unconscionable injury because of their reliance on respondent’s
misrepresentation. Accordingly, we conclude that Mrs. Kandil’s
transportation expenses do not constitute qualified higher
education expenses for purposes of section 72(t)(2)(E).
Conclusion
We have considered all of the other arguments made by
petitioners, and, to the extent that we have not specifically
addressed those arguments, we conclude that they are without
merit.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue, as well as
respondent’s concession,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: May 25, 2011