MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WELLS, Judge. Respondent determined a deficiency of $7,680 in petitioner's Federal income tax for his 2008 tax year. 1 During trial, petitioner conceded that his State tax refund of $1,106 is taxable and should be included in his 2008 taxable income. 2 After petitioner's concession, the only issue that we must decide is whether petitioner is entitled to the first-time homebuyer credit (FTHBC), pursuant to section 36, of $7,500 for his 2008 tax year....
GOEKE, Judge : Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax as follows: Year Deficiency 2004 $33,912,933 2006 5,837,489 Respondent's determinations of tax deficiencies result from adjustments made following respondent's examination of returns of Vibo Corp., d.b.a. General Tobacco, Inc. (Vibo), 1 an S corporation, because pursuant to section 1366 2 all of the deductions and losses of Vibo properly passed through to...
PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE. SUMMARY OPINION ARMEN, Special Trial Judge. This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed. 1 Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Respondent determined a deficiency...
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION KERRIGAN, Judge. This case involves a noncash charitable contribution deduction. Respondent determined the following tax deficiencies and penalties: 1 Penalties Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6662(h) 2006 $79,252 $15,853 $26,743 2007 25,719 5,344 10,688 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule...
HALPERN, Judge: This case is before the Court to review determinations made by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals Office (Appeals) in four notices issued to petitioner after a collection due process (CDP) hearing conducted pursuant to sections 6320(b) and (c) and 6330(b) and (c). 1 Together, those determinations sustained (1) respondent's right to proceed to collect by levy petitioner's assessed liabilities for 1997 through 2003 and (2) the filing of notices of Federal tax lien (...
MEMORANDUM OPINION COHEN, Judge. This case was commenced under section 6330 in response to a notice of determination concerning collection action that sustained a levy with respect to petitioners' unpaid Federal income tax liabilities for 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. The issue for decision is whether the Appeals settlement officer abused his discretion in refusing petitioners' suggested installment agreement. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal...
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge. Petitioners and respondent filed computations for entry of decision under Rule 155 1 in connection with our prior Memorandum Opinion, Fitch v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 2012-358 ( Fitch I ). The parties disagree over the proper computation of petitioners' self-employment tax for 2005, 2006, and 2007 (years in issue). Petitioners resided in California, a community property State, during the years in issue. Background For purposes of this...
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge. Respondent determined deficiencies and penalties with respect to petitioners' Federal income taxes as follows: Penalty Year Deficiency sec. 6662(a) 2004 $73,261 $14,652.20 2005 38,401 7,680.20 After concessions, the issues for decision are (1) whether petitioners are entitled to a net operating loss (NOL) carryover in excess of the amount respondent conceded for 2004 and (2) whether...
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HALPERN, Judge. Respondent determined accuracy-related penalties of $7,589 and $17,508 with respect to petitioners' 2008 and 2009 joint Federal income tax, respectively. We sustain the determination. Unless otherwise stated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 2008 and 2009 (years in issue), and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. We round all dollar amounts to the nearest dollar....
OPINION WHERRY, Judge : The petition in this case was filed by Jetstream Business Limited (Jetstream) as tax matters partner for Sugarloaf Fund, LLC (Sugarloaf), on January 8, 2010. On July 12, 2012, Timothy J. Elmes filed an election to participate in this case pursuant to section 6226(c). 1 On July 19, 2012, Mr. Elmes filed a motion requesting that the Court stay consolidation of this case with other transactionally related cases. On July 30, 2012, Mr. Elmes filed a motion requesting a...
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION HAINES, Judge. This case is before the Court on petitioner's motions to vacate decision pursuant to Rule 162 1 and to reconsider our Opinion in Mitchell v. Commissioner , 138 T.C. 324 (2012) ( Mitchell I ), pursuant to Rule 161. We will grant petitioner's motion to vacate the decision in order to consider and rule on petitioner's motion to reconsider our Opinion. For the reasons that follow, we will deny petitioner's motion to reconsider (petitioner's...
MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge. Respondent determined a $78,760 deficiency in petitioners' 2005 Federal income tax and a $15,752 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). 1 Respondent having conceded the penalty, the issues for decision are (1) whether petitioners have $215,920 of unreported income from Dr. Ramesh T. Kumar's shareholder interest in Port St. Lucie Ventures, Inc. (PSLV), an S corporation; and (2) whether petitioners have $2,344 of interest income from Dr. Kumar's...
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION KERRIGAN, Judge. Respondent determined the following deficiencies and penalties with respect to petitioners' Federal income tax for tax years 2006 and 2007: Penalty Year Deficiency sec. 6662(a) 2006 $39,510 $7,902 2007 51,076 10,215 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to...
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARIS, Judge. In these consolidated cases respondent issued three notices of deficiency determining the following deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax and section 6662(a) 1 accuracy-related penalties: Penalty sec. Year Deficiency 6662(a) 1993 $15,577 $3,115.40 1994 52,833 10,566.60 1995 61,586 12,317.20 1996 84,906...
MEMORANDUM OPINION THORNTON, Judge. This is a partner-level affected items deficiency proceeding under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. No. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. at 648. 1 Respondent issued to Ellen S. Simon and the Estate of Albert Simon, Deceased, an affected items notice of deficiency for 2000 that determined a $1,293,264 deficiency in their Federal income tax, a $33,172 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a), a $450,961 accuracy-...
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION HAINES, Judge : This case is before the Court on petitioners' motion to reconsider our opinion in Carpenter v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 2012-1 ( Carpenter I ), pursuant to Rule 161. 2 Respondent objects. In their motion petitioners allege that this Court erred in relying on Kaufman v. Commissioner , 136 T.C. 294 (2011) ( Kaufman II ), which was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in...
CONTENTS FINDINGS OF FACT ............................................................ 379 NAT ...................................................................... 379 The property ............................................................. 380 Increased IRS scrutiny of easement contributions ......................... 380 NAT's solicitation ....................................................... 381 The side letter ............................................................
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge. Respondent determined a deficiency of $7,278 and an accuracy-related penalty of $1,456 in petitioner's Federal income tax for 2008. The issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioner is entitled to a deduction for alimony paid greater than the amount respondent allowed; and (2) whether petitioner is liable for an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). 1 FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found....
SUMMARY OPINION CARLUZZO, Special Trial Judge. This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed. 1 Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. In a notice of deficiency dated August 21, 2009, respondent determined deficiencies of $23,706 and $27,653 in petitioners' 2006 and 2007 Federal...
OPINION JACOBS, Judge : This case is before the Court on petitioner's motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule 121. The specific question to be decided is whether the section 6501 period of limitations on assessment and collection expired before the date respondent mailed petitioner the notice of deficiency. For the reasons set forth infra, we will grant petitioner's motion. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years at issue unless...
