Bidyut K. Bhattacharyya and Diana T. Bhattacharyya - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          petitioners were liable for an addition to tax under section                
          6651(a)(1) of $38,837.                                                      
               On June 26, 2004, petitioners sent respondent a letter and             
          attached another Form 1040X (petitioners’ second Form 1040X).               
          Petitioners’ second Form 1040X was identical to petitioners’                
          first Form 1040X, but the letter included an additional                     
          explanation of the changes made by petitioners to their original            
          Federal income tax return.  Respondent did not file petitioners’            
          second Form 1040X.                                                          
               Petitioners filed their petition with this Court on August             
          20, 2004.  Petitioners requested the Court to determine that they           
          are due a refund “$9000 (Back Approx.)”.  Respondent filed an               
          answer on September 29, 2004, but did not seek an increased                 
          deficiency or addition to tax.                                              
               This case was called during the Court’s regular trial                  
          session in Portland, Oregon, beginning December 5, 2005.  On                
          February 21, 2006, respondent filed a Motion for Leave to Amend             
          Answer to Conform to Evidence Presented at Trial and to Claim an            
          Increased Deficiency and Addition to Tax, with Accompanying                 
          Proposed Amendment to Answer (respondent’s motion to conform the            
          pleadings to the evidence) under Rule 41(b).  In the amendment to           
          answer, which was lodged with the Court on February 21, 2006,               
          respondent asserted that petitioners were liable for an increased           







Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011