- 9 - Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 864 (1974); Waxler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-425. Consequently, although the current record might leave us in doubt as to petitioner’s prospects for ultimately succeeding in showing error in the notice of deficiency, we shall not deny petitioner an opportunity to present relevant evidence. As this Court observed in Parker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-263: It is true that petitioner is not entitled to a trial on the possibility that an issue of material fact might turn up at the trial. First Nat. Bank v. Cities Service, 391 U.S. 253, 289-290 (1968). But it is equally true that the fact it may be surmised that petitioner is unlikely to prevail at trial is not a sufficient basis for refusing him his day in court with respect to an issue which is not shown to be sham, frivolous, or so unsubstantial that it would obviously be futile to try it. * * * We reject, however, petitioner’s misguided view, reflected in his objection to respondent’s motion for summary judgment, that he is entitled to relief under section 1341. In certain circumstances, section 1341 may provide tax relief to a taxpayer who repays money in one year that had been included in gross income for a prior year under a claim of right. The relief provided under section 1341, however, applies to the year in which the repayment is made and does not affect the taxpayer’s obligation to report as income, in the year of receipt, items received under a claim of right. See generally MidAmerican Energy Co. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 570, 581 (2000) (explaining purposes and operation of section 1341), affd. 271 F.3d 740 (8thPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011