- 7 -
petitioner disagreed with respondent’s computation of
petitioner’s deficiency on the basis of the items addressed in
the stipulation of settlement on the date respondent filed his
motion for entry of decision. Petitioner also argues that
respondent misled the Court by filing his motion for entry of
decision without disclosing, as required by Rule 50(a), that
petitioner disagreed with respondent’s computation of
petitioner’s deficiency on the basis of items addressed in the
stipulation of settlement. We disagree.
Rule 155 is the mechanism whereby the Court is enabled to
enter a decision in a case where the dollar amounts of the
deficiency, liabilities, and/or overpayment cannot readily be
determined. Cloes v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 933, 935 (1982). In
accordance with the computations in respondent’s motion for entry
of decision, we entered a decision that there is a deficiency of
$3,492 in petitioner’s 2000 Federal income tax and that there is
no penalty due from petitioner for the taxable year 2000 under
section 6662(a).
Petitioner does not show that he disagreed with respondent’s
computation of petitioner’s tax liability in accordance with the
stipulation of settlement, nor does petitioner allege that there
was lack of consent, mistake, or fraud as the basis for his
motion to vacate order and decision. Instead, petitioner raises
new issues involving possible entitlement to a child tax credit,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011