- 6 -
After we issued our opinions in Menard I and Menard II, we
received and filed respondent’s computation for entry of decision
pursuant to Rule 155 in each of these consolidated cases.
Respondent concluded that (1) Menards owed an income tax
deficiency of $5,720,334 and a penalty of $188,295.60, and (2)
Mr. Menard owed an income tax deficiency of $921,491 and a
penalty of $184,298.20. Petitioners filed a notice of objection
to respondent’s Rule 155 computations in which they alleged that
Menards’s correct income tax deficiency and penalty amounts were
$5,523,488.20 and $188,295.60, respectively, and that Mr.
Menard’s correct income tax deficiency and penalty amounts were
$724,645 and $184,298.20, respectively.2
The parties’ deficiency computations for both Menards and
Mr. Menard differ by $196,845.81, which is the amount of hospital
insurance tax (hospital tax) that Mr. Menard and Menards contend
they overpaid pursuant to sections 3101(b) and 3111(b),
respectively.3 Petitioners contend that, consistent with our
2We also received and filed respondent’s response to
petitioners’ objection, petitioners’ reply to respondent’s
response, and supplements from both parties.
3Petitioners’ counsel first raised the question whether
respondent would permit petitioners to offset the amount of any
hospital tax overpayments against any income tax deficiencies
determined by the Court at a meeting in November 2002 and in
correspondence that followed the meeting. At that time,
respondent’s counsel agreed that the matter was purely
computational and it would not be necessary for petitioners to
file an amended petition raising the issue. Under the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008