-23-
certain issues by respondent on brief, Rule 155 computations will
be necessary in these cases.15
The parties settled several issues in these cases before and
during the trial. In addition, the parties’ objections and
responses to the STJ report narrowed the issues remaining in
dispute. The issues left to be decided are:
(1) Whether payments received by various entities associated
with Kanter during the years at issue represent income earned by
and properly taxable to Kanter, Ballard, and Lisle;
(2) if the Court sustains respondent’s determinations that
Kanter, Ballard, and Lisle are taxable on the payments in
question, whether Kanter and Ballard are liable for additions to
tax for fraud;
15 In several of the cases in which respondent filed
amended pleadings seeking increased deficiencies in tax and
additions to tax, respondent left blank the amounts of additional
income as to which increased deficiencies were asserted, with
footnotes stating that such “amounts will be provided later”.
Petitioners filed motions to strike respondent’s assertions of
increased deficiencies where the amounts of increased income or
disallowed expenses were not specifically asserted. The Court
denied petitioners’ motions but ordered respondent to file
amended pleadings by a designated date asserting the amounts of
increased income or disallowed expenses. Respondent filed
amended pleadings to comply with the Court’s order in all
pertinent cases except two: Docket Nos. 31301-87 and 33557-87,
Burton W. and Naomi R. Kanter. An order will be issued on the
Court’s own motion in docket No. 31301-87 striking respondent’s
assertion of increased income to the Kanters from IRA for the
1978 tax year. No such order will be issued in docket No. 33557-
87 because the transaction as to which respondent asserted
increased income is an issue the parties have identified as
Cablevision Programming Investments, which the parties have
settled.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011