- 17 -
In the instant case, neither the Supreme Court nor the Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit made any finding regarding the
correct amount of the estate’s deficiencies, nor did they
preclude ultimate findings on remand that would result in the
same deficiencies set forth in our prior decisions. In
particular, the Supreme Court held that this Court’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure did not warrant the collaborative process
that the Court employed in formulating its Memorandum Opinion in
Inv. Research Associates, Ltd. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-
407. Ballard v. Commissioner, 544 U.S. at , 125 S. Ct. at
1279-1283. The Supreme Court remanded the Kanter and Ballard
deficiency cases to the Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and
Eleventh Circuits, respectively, for further proceedings
consistent with its opinion. Id. at __, 125 S. Ct. at 1286. On
remand, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated its
decision, reinstated the estate’s appeal, denied the estate’s
requests (1) for an order of production, (2) to supplement the
record, and (3) for additional briefing, and remanded the cases
to this Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme
Court’s decision in Ballard. Estate of Kanter v. Commissioner,
406 F.3d at 934. In the absence of any specific finding by
either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals disallowing the
deficiencies (in whole or in part) determined by this Court, we
shall deny the estate’s motion for abatement of assessments.
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