Estate of Burton W. Kanter, Deceased, Joshua S. Kanter, Executor, and Naomi R. Kanter, et al. - Page 367

                                                -424-                                                   
                 issue is entirely dependent upon the resolution of                                     
                 Kanter’s Tax Court case involving his 1977 year                                        
                 (docket. No.  12282-82), which was previously docketed                                 
                 and decided by this Court.  Although respondent * * *                                  
                 [in his proposed finding] states that petitioners                                      
                 failed to address this issue, that is not the case.                                    
                 Respondent’s counsel stipulated on the record that                                     
                 petitioners had addressed all of the issues raised in                                  
                 respondent’s notice of deficiency.  (Tr. 4825).  Since                                 
                 this issue is purely computational, and respondent is                                  
                 well aware of the terms of the resolution of Kanter’s                                  
                 1977 tax liability, the amount of the carryover from                                   
                 1977 to 1978 will be addressed in the eventual Rule 155                                
                 proceeding in this matter, and need not be addressed by                                
                 the Court at this time.                                                                
                 The “stipulation” referred to is the discussion that took                              
           place among the Court, petitioners’ counsel, and respondent’s                                
           counsel concerning the parties’ settlement of a number of other                              
           adjustments for the years at issue.                                                          
                 Respondent contends petitioners failed to carry their burden                           
           of proof under Rule 142(a).                                                                  
           B.  Analysis                                                                                 
                 During the trial of these cases, Kanter’s counsel suggested                            
           that he would read into the record the issues the parties had                                
           settled.  Transcr. at 4823.  The Court rejected this proposal and                            
           instead directed the parties to submit to the Court a                                        
           comprehensive written stipulation of settlement.  Transcr. at                                
           4823-4825.  The Court’s objective was to avoid the confusion that                            
           an oral presentation of the settled issues was likely to create.                             
           Id.                                                                                          







Page:  Previous  414  415  416  417  418  419  420  421  422  423  424  425  426  427  428  429  430  431  432  433  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011