Roth v. Commissioner

1998 T.C. Memo. 28, 75 T.C.M. 1624, 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 27
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 22, 1998
DocketTax Ct. Dkt. No. 21823-96
StatusUnpublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 1998 T.C. Memo. 28 (Roth 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
Roth v. Commissioner, 1998 T.C. Memo. 28, 75 T.C.M. 1624, 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 27 (tax 1998).

Opinion

RAYMOND E. ROTH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Roth v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. Dkt. No. 21823-96
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1998-28; 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 27; 75 T.C.M. (CCH) 1624;
January 22, 1998, Filed

*27 An appropriate order granting respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings will be issued; decision will be entered for respondent.

Respondent moved under Rule 37(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, that the undenied allegations in the answer be deemed admitted. Petitioner did not avail himself of the opportunity to file a reply or otherwise object to the motion. We granted respondent's Rule 37(c) motion. Respondent moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 120, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

HELD: Respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted; decision will be entered for respondent as to all the deficiencies and additions to tax determined in the notices of deficiency.

Raymond E. Roth, pro se.
Janet J. Johnson, for respondent.
CHABOT, JUDGE.

CHABOT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHABOT, JUDGE: This matter is before us on respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 120. 1 Respondent determined deficiencies in Federal individual income tax and additions to tax under *28 sections 6651(f)2 (fraud), 6654 (underpayment of estimated tax), and 6663 (fraud) against petitioner as follows:

Additions to Tax
YearDeficiencySec. 6651(f) Sec. 6654Sec. 6663
1989$ 21,344$ 15,474$ 112
199011,065  $ 8,299
19916,882   5,162  
199211,934  8,652   336  
199311,597  n18,408      486  
199414,183  6,170   662  

*29 FOOTNOTE TO TABLE

The cover letter and schedule 1 of the notice of deficiency show this as a $ 8,408 addition to tax under sec. 6663. Schedule 7 of the notice of deficiency shows this as a $ 8,408 addition to tax under sec. 6651(f). The matter is clarified in respondent's answer as being under sec. 6651(f). Petitioner has not raised any concern about this matter. Taking into account the record as a whole, we hold that respondent determined that the $ 8,408 addition to tax for 1993 was under sec. 6651(f) and not under sec. 6663. Bokum v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126, 127 n.2 (1990), affd.

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

Related

Alexander v. Comm'r
2013 T.C. Memo. 203 (U.S. Tax Court, 2013)
Stanley L. & Ruth A. Alexander v. Commissioner
2013 T.C. Memo. 203 (U.S. Tax Court, 2013)
Garcia v. Comm'r
2012 T.C. Memo. 155 (U.S. Tax Court, 2012)
Plotkin v. Comm'r
2011 T.C. Memo. 260 (U.S. Tax Court, 2011)
Cooley v. Comm'r
2004 T.C. Memo. 49 (U.S. Tax Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1998 T.C. Memo. 28, 75 T.C.M. 1624, 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-commissioner-tax-1998.