Mila Alemasov and Victor Popov - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
          6662(a).1  After concessions,2 there are two issues for decision:           
          (1) Whether petitioners are entitled to deductions under section            
          162(a) for expenses relating to a real estate activity, and (2)             
          whether petitioners are liable for an addition to tax under                 
          section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file their 2002 return timely.            
                                     Background                                       
               At the time the petition was filed, Mila Alemasov                      
          (petitioner) and Victor Popov were married and resided in San               
          Francisco, California.3                                                     
               Petitioner was born in Russia, immigrated to the United                
          States when she was a child, and has resided in San Francisco               
          since 1979.  She has a bachelor’s degree in international                   
          business from San Francisco State University and a master’s                 

               1Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the             
          Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue, and all              
          Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and                  
          Procedure.                                                                  
               2In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that               
          petitioners had rental income of $3,876 not reported on Schedule            
          E, Supplemental Income and Loss.  At trial, respondent conceded             
          $3,692 of this adjustment.  Respondent conceded the remaining               
          $184 of the adjustment in his brief to the Court.  These                    
          concessions prompted respondent to further concede that                     
          petitioners were not liable for the sec. 6662(a) accuracy-related           
          penalty since that adjustment was based on the conceded                     
          unreported rental income.                                                   
               3The parties did not submit an agreed stipulation of facts             
          at trial as required by Rule 91(a); yet, of the 17 exhibits                 
          accepted into evidence during the trial, 16 were filed as joint             
          exhibits.  Counsel for the parties are experienced attorneys                
          before this Court, and such practices are not in accord with the            
          spirit of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.                     






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007