Estate of Burton W. Kanter, Deceased, Joshua S. Kanter, Executor, and Naomi R. Kanter, et al. - Page 142

                                                 -22-                                                   
            section 6621(c), or if the underpayment was for 1989, subject to                            
            a penalty under section 6662.14                                                             
                  In the amended pleadings referred to above, respondent did                            
            not calculate or assert the amounts of the increased tax                                    
            deficiencies or the amounts of the additions to tax or penalties.                           
            Respondent generally asserted the amounts of increased income or                            
            the amounts of disallowed expenses that would result in increased                           
            deficiencies in tax and additions to tax.  As a result of these                             
            amended pleadings, and as a result of numerous concessions and                              
            stipulations of settlement which were effected by the parties                               
            before, during, and after the trial, as well as concessions of                              



                  14  As previously discussed, in Estate of Lisle v.                                    
            Commissioner, 341 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 2003), the Court of Appeals                            
            for the Fifth Circuit affirmed this Court’s holding that the                                
            Estate of Lisle was liable for the deficiencies in dispute for                              
            1987 to 1989 but reversed this Court’s holding that the Estate of                           
            Lisle was liable for additions to tax for fraud (and therefore                              
            assessment for the taxable year 1984 was barred by the period of                            
            limitations).  After the Lisle cases were first remanded to this                            
            Court for entry of revised decisions (but before the Court of                               
            Appeals recalled its mandate on Nov. 22, 2005), respondent                                  
            asserted the Court should sustain respondent’s alternative                                  
            determinations that the Estate of Lisle was liable for additions                            
            to tax under secs. 6653(a)(1) and (2) and 6659(a), increased                                
            interest under sec. 6621(c), and accuracy-related penalties under                           
            sec. 6662.  Petitioners disagreed and filed with the Court of                               
            Appeals a document that was treated as a petition for writ of                               
            mandamus.  Although the Court of Appeals issued an order denying                            
            the petition for writ of mandamus, the Court of Appeals intimated                           
            that issues concerning alternative additions to tax were beyond                             
            the scope of the remand.  Consequently, the sole issue remaining                            
            to be decided in the Estate of Lisle cases is whether the Estate                            
            of Lisle is liable for the tax deficiencies determined in the                               
            notices of deficiency for 1987 to 1989.                                                     




Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011