- 10 -
petitioner reported on the Nov. 10 return. Respondent argues,
however, that petitioner realized additional gross income of
$29,996 not reported on the Nov. 10 return on account of
petitioner’s March 1, 2000, withdrawal of that amount from Hudson
United Bank. Moreover, respondent disagrees with many of the
deductions claimed and calculations made on the Nov. 10 return.
Initially, respondent argued that petitioner is not entitled to
compute his 2000 income tax liability using the rate schedule for
a married couple making a joint return. Respondent argued that
petitioner could not elect joint return status since, to do so,
he (and his wife) had to file a return on which they made a joint
return election. Since respondent does not permit a taxpayer to
“file” a tax return for a year after respondent has issued the
taxpayer a notice of deficiency for the year, respondent argued
that petitioner had filed no return for 2000. Having filed no
return for 2000, respondent continued, petitioner could not elect
joint return status. Respondent additionally argued that
petitioner was disqualified from making a joint return for 2000
because he failed to include his wife’s income on the Nov. 10
return. In a supplement to brief, respondent conceded those two
arguments. Respondent now accepts that petitioner is entitled to
use joint return rates for 2000. We assume that respondent also
accepts petitioner’s claim of a deduction for two personal
exemptions. Our analyses of the remaining issues follow.
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