- 4 -
Background
When the petition was filed in the instant case, petitioner
resided in San Pedro, California. Petitioner filed joint income
tax returns with her then-husband, Tom I. Lincir (hereinafter
sometimes referred to as Lincir), for each of the years 1978
through 1982. These years were the subject of litigation in the
1989 case, in which respondent determined deficiencies in, and
additions to, petitioner’s and Lincir’s Federal income tax for
1978 through 1982 aggregating more than $600,000; respondent also
determined that petitioner and Lincir were liable for increased
interest on underpayments attributable to a tax-motivated
transaction under section 6621(c). Issues in the 1989 case were
addressed in Lincir v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-98, and
Lincir v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 293 (2000), affd. 32 Fed. Appx.
278 (9th Cir. 2002). We summarize the factual and procedural
background briefly here and make additional findings helpful in
ruling on the instant motion.
The setting of the 1989 case is described as follows in
Lincir v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-98:
The deficiencies in this case result from
respondent’s disallowance of certain losses. The
losses include those attributable to petitioners’
[i.e., petitioner’s and Lincir’s] participation in the
“Arbitrage and Carry” gold trading promoted by Futures
Trading, Inc. (FTI). The losses also include those
attributable to petitioners’ participation in the
Treasury bill (T-bill) option and stock forward
transactions promoted by Merit Securities, Inc.
(Merit), a company that is related to FTI.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007