Estate of Burton W. Kanter, Deceased, Joshua S. Kanter, Executor, and Naomi R. Kanter, et al. - Page 379

                                                -435-                                                   
           appealed and is otherwise final.  See secs. 7481(a)(1), 7483.                                
           Consequently, we need not consider this issue.                                               
           Issue XXIV.  Additions to Tax and Related Matters                                            
                                               OPINION                                                  
                 In some of the notices of deficiency issued to the Kanters                             
           and/or in amended pleadings filed in the Kanters’ cases,                                     
           respondent determined (as an alternative to respondent’s                                     
           determination the Kanters were liable for additions to tax for                               
           fraud) that the Kanters were liable for additions to tax under                               
           section 6653 (negligence), section 6659 (substantial valuation                               
           overstatement), section 6661 (substantial understatement of tax),                            
           and increased interest under section 6621(c).                                                
                 The STJ report, at 265-293, recommended holding (1) the                                
           Kanters were liable for additions to tax under sections 6653,                                
           6659, and 6661 for the years in question, and (2) the Kanters                                
           were liable for increased interest for 1980, 1984, 1986, and                                 
           1987.                                                                                        
                 Inasmuch as respondent asserted these additions to tax                                 
           against Kanter strictly as alternatives to respondent’s assertion                            
           of the fraud additions (which we sustained above with regard to                              
           income Kanter earned from The Five), we need not consider the                                
           alternative additions to tax.                                                                









Page:  Previous  425  426  427  428  429  430  431  432  433  434  435  436  437  438  439  440  441  442  443  444  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011