Osserman v. Commissioner

1996 T.C. Memo. 205, 71 T.C.M. 2892, 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 225
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedApril 29, 1996
DocketDocket No. 44576-86
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 T.C. Memo. 205 (Osserman v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Osserman v. Commissioner, 1996 T.C. Memo. 205, 71 T.C.M. 2892, 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 225 (tax 1996).

Opinion

GEORGE M. OSSERMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Osserman v. Commissioner
Docket No. 44576-86
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1996-205; 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 225; 71 T.C.M. (CCH) 2892;
April 29, 1996, Filed

*225 An appropriate order will be issued granting respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in part and denying her motion in part.

George M. Osserman, pro se.
Maureen T. O'Brien, for respondent.
WOLFE

WOLFE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WOLFE, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed under Rule 121. 1 Respondent bases her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the pleadings and matters deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 90(c). Petitioner has not responded to the pending motion.

In three notices of deficiency dated August 20, 1986, respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income tax.

Additions to Tax
YearDeficiencySec. 6653(b)Sec. 6654(a)
1975$ 134,599$ 67,299  --    
19765,050,1492,525,075  --    
19777,926,7283,963,364  $ 253,655  
19782,053,1061,026,553  65,698  
19791,076,634538,317  --    
1980441,711220,855  --    
1981252,288126,144  --    
1982325,922--    --    

*226 Respondent also determined additions to tax for 1982 in the amount of $ 32,592 under section 6661 for substantial understatement of tax, in the amount of $ 81,480 under section 6651(a) for failure to timely file, in the amount of $ 16,296 under section 6653(a)(1) for negligence, and under section 6653(a)(2) in an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment attributable to negligence. For the years 1975 through 1982, respondent also determined that interest on deficiencies accruing after December 31, 1984, would be calculated at 120 percent of the statutory rate under section 6621(c). 2

*227 On February 2, 1990, the parties filed a stipulation of settled issues that resolved some of the issues in dispute. On March 28, 1990, respondent filed a First Request for Admissions (First Request). Respondent mailed her First Request to petitioner at four different addresses, including the address provided by petitioner in the stipulation of settled issues. On April 13, 1990, respondent notified the Court that her First Request had subsequently been mailed to petitioner at still another address in Boca Raton, Florida. Petitioner did not answer or object to respondent's First Request.

On August 3, 1993, respondent filed a Second Request for Admissions (Second Request) and mailed it to petitioner at the Boca Raton address in Florida. Petitioner did not answer or object to respondent's Second Request. By Order dated October 5, 1993, the Court requested petitioner and respondent to file Status Reports with the Court before November 5, 1993. Respondent complied with this Order, but petitioner failed to respond.

On November 23, 1993, respondent filed her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Respondent seeks partial summary adjudication of the following issues raised in the notices *228

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ralph Freedson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
565 F.2d 954 (Fifth Circuit, 1978)
Lee Alexander v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
926 F.2d 197 (Second Circuit, 1991)
McDonald v. Commissioner
1996 T.C. Memo. 87 (U.S. Tax Court, 1996)
Coninck v. Commissioner
100 T.C. No. 31 (U.S. Tax Court, 1993)
Clayton v. Commissioner
102 T.C. No. 25 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
O'Neal v. Commissioner
102 T.C. No. 28 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Commissioner
104 T.C. No. 29 (U.S. Tax Court, 1995)
Beaver v. Commissioner
55 T.C. 85 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Shiosaki v. Commissioner
61 T.C. No. 90 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Freedson v. Commissioner
65 T.C. 333 (U.S. Tax Court, 1975)
Rowlee v. Commissioner
80 T.C. No. 61 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Hebrank v. Commissioner
81 T.C. No. 36 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Morrison v. Commissioner
81 T.C. No. 37 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Marshall v. Commissioner
85 T.C. No. 13 (U.S. Tax Court, 1985)
Dahlstrom v. Commissioner
85 T.C. No. 47 (U.S. Tax Court, 1985)
Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner
90 T.C. No. 41 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)
Kroh v. Commissioner
98 T.C. No. 29 (U.S. Tax Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1996 T.C. Memo. 205, 71 T.C.M. 2892, 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osserman-v-commissioner-tax-1996.