Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al. - Page 87

                                       - 50 -                                         

          Respondent asserted that the new agreement was unauthorized and             
          had no legal basis.  If respondent’s motion had been granted, the           
          Thompsons’ deficiencies would have been zero for taxable year               
          1979, $34,425 for 1980, and $30,000 for 1981.                               
               On August 26, 1992, this Court granted DeCastro’s motions              
          for entry of decision in the Thompson cases, thus holding                   
          respondent to the pretrial concessions made by Sims and McWade in           
          the new agreement:                                                          
                    Year      Deficiency     Additions to Tax                         
                    1979          ---               ---                               
                    1980       $15,000       ---                                      
                    1981        15,000              ---                               
          The Tax Court’s decision for 1981 also relieved the Thompsons of            
          the non-Kersting late filing addition of $4,934.32 under section            
          6651(a).  That addition was the only non-Kersting issue in the              
          Thompsons’ docketed cases.                                                  
               Respondent did not appeal the decisions entered by the Court           
          with respect to the cases of the Thompsons and the Cravenses.23             

          23The Cravenses, who were not represented by counsel after                  
          Seery’s withdrawal, had agreed with McWade to deficiencies of               
          $9,782.16 for their taxable years 1979 and 1980, a reduction of             
          only about 6 percent from the originally determined deficiencies            
          of $10,401.45.  This settlement was less favorable to them                  
          percentagewise than the generally available modified 7-percent              
          reduction settlement offer and did not include the “burnout”                
          feature.  On Aug. 25, 1992, this Court entered a decision                   
          reflecting the Cravens settlement amounts, but the decision                 
          included the stipulation that certain advance payments made by              
          the Cravenses had not yet been taken into account.  Late in                 
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011