Chad W. and Aliza Kold-Warren - Page 3




                                         -2-                                          
          other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent             
          for any other cases.                                                        
               The Court issued a bench opinion in this case on November              
          16, 2006, and directed therein that the decision be entered                 
          pursuant to the procedures set forth in Rule 155 of the Tax Court           
          Rules of Practice and Procedure.  In accordance with those                  
          procedures, each party submitted a computation of the deficiency.           
          Respondent’s Computation for Entry of Decision was filed March              
          21, 2007.  Petitioners’ Alternative Computation for Entry of                
          Decision was filed April 5, 2007.  Respondent’s Reply to                    
          Petitioners’ Alternative Computation for Entry of Decision,                 
          referred to herein as respondent’s revised computation, was filed           
          June 15, 2007.  The case is before the Court to resolve the                 
          differences between the parties regarding the amount of the                 
          deficiency to be entered by the Court.                                      
               Respondent’s original computation asks the Court to                    
          redetermine a deficiency for 2002 of $10,246 and to redetermine             
          petitioners’ liability for a penalty of $2,049.20 under section             
          6662(a).  Respondent’s revised computation concedes that the                
          original computation is incorrect on a number of points.                    
          Respondent’s revised computation asks the Court to decide that              
          there is a deficiency of $5,913 in petitioners’ income tax for              
          2002, as computed in respondent’s revised computation, and to               
          decide further that petitioners are liable for an accuracy-                 







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008