- 6 -
respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income
tax of $169,510 for 2000.
On December 4, 2003, petitioner attempted to file an amended
Federal income tax return for 2000. On the amended return,
petitioner reported a net decrease in tax of $116,973. The
change was based on the theory that, under section 83, petitioner
was not required to recognize AMTI on the exercise of his ISOs
because his rights to the shares of Exodus stock were subject to
substantial risk of forfeiture and were nontransferable.
Respondent did not accept petitioner’s amended return.
On December 18, 2003, petitioner filed his petition with
this Court.
On December 27, 2004, respondent filed a motion for partial
summary judgment. In the motion, respondent asked the Court to
find that petitioner’s rights to his shares of Exodus stock were
not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.
On December 28, 2004, petitioner filed a cross-motion for
partial summary judgment. In the motion, petitioner asked the
Court to find that: (1) Petitioner’s rights to his shares of
Exodus stock were subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture and
were nontransferable; and (2) in the alternative, petitioner is
4(...continued)
hereinafter use the fair market value as stipulated by the
parties. However, we direct the parties to address this
discrepancy and to resolve any impact it may have on petitioner’s
deficiency as part of their Rule 155 calculations.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011