Ralph Tashjian - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          No. 114-88) under Rule 162.  Petitioner admits in his brief that            
          “The proper course of action to challenge the tax and interest              
          assessments on the grounds raised herein would be to petition the           
          Tax Court for leave to file a Motion to Vacate its decision.”               
          Adjudication of those grounds here would subject the validity of            
          the decision in the Lumenetics case to an impermissible                     
          collateral attack.  Cf. Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300,             
          313 (1995) (quoting Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314                 
          (1967)); McCorkle v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 56, 65-66 (2005);               
          Sennett v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 694, 696-697 (1978); Hackworth             
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-173.                                       
               (As indicated above, other partners in the Lumenetics                  
          partnership attempted and failed in the Tax Court as well as in             
          the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to have the                 
          decision in Lumenetics vacated.  Our statement regarding the                
          proper procedure for challenging the jurisdiction of the Court in           
          that case should not be construed as a recommendation that the              
          course be further pursued.)                                                 
               Even if petitioner were entitled to contest the underlying             
          tax liability in this case, he has not shown, and apparently is             
          unable to show, that disallowance of the partnership losses                 
          claimed on his individual returns for the years in issue is                 
          erroneous.  Petitioner admitted at trial that he never had                  
          records of income or expenses incurred by the partnerships that             
          were deducted on his returns.  The bottom line is that petitioner           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011