- 3 -
attached to the return in a manner adequate to apprise the
Secretary of the nature and amount of such item. In the briefs
submitted before our opinion at T.C. Memo. 2004-272 was filed,
neither party raised the issue of adequate disclosure under
section 6501(e)(1)(A)(ii).
After our opinion at T.C. Memo. 2004-272, petitioners filed
a motion for reconsideration. Petitioners now for the first time
argue that the prior opinion did not provide a basis to resolve
the question of whether petitioners Burton O. and Elizabeth C.
Benson (the Bensons) disclosed the understatements of gross
income on their returns. Petitioners argue that their failure to
make this argument before our previous opinion was due to the
complexities of the way the case was presented and briefed. On
March 10, 2005, we granted petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration of findings and opinion pursuant to Rule 161 with
respect to the application of section 6501(e).
In Benson v. Commissioner, supra, we found that the Bensons
received items of gross income in 1989, 1990, 1993, and 1994 that
were not reported on their Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax
Returns, as follows:
Tax Year
Description 1989 1990 1993 1994
ERG-Recreation acct. –- 1$686 $26,000 $2,698
ERG transfers to NPI $483,098 –- 3,600,000 160,063
143 Alice Lane –- 336,500 –- –-
Prop. taxes Alice Ln. –- –- 3,879 8,196
Check ref: Carroll 2 96,749 –- –- –-
Automobile deductions 10,624 23,676 28,308 14,723
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