2015 T.C. Memo. 37
Tax Ct.2015Background
- This is a supplemental memorandum opinion to Hartland Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-8.
- After the Court's January 12, 2015 Memorandum Opinion was filed, the parties filed a joint Rule 161 motion on January 22, 2015 revealing new facts not previously in the record.
- The parties disclosed that certain deficiencies, penalties, and interest for specific taxable years had been assessed and paid, and that suits regarding those years remained pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
- The parties further revealed they had reached an agreement affecting the calculation of deficiencies for earlier years, producing figures different from those in the statutory notices.
- The Court recognized that some issues it had treated as conceded were, in fact, not before the Court because of the parties’ prior undisclosed agreement.
- The Court therefore instructed that references to certain years and related determinations should be disregarded and that decisions for the remaining years must conform to the parties’ agreement rather than to the original statutory notices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should rely on the statutory notices for years now paid or under separate suit | Petitioners argued the matters for those years were not properly before the Court given payments and pending suits | Commissioner had issued statutory notices and the Court initially treated some issues as conceded | Court held the determinations for those paid/pending years should be disregarded and not sustained based on the statutory notices |
| Whether previously unraised issues were conceded by silence | Petitioners contended the issues other than the period-of-limitations were not before the Court due to the parties’ agreement | Commissioner relied on petitioners’ prior failure to raise issues as concessions | Court concluded petitioners had not conceded those issues because the matters were not properly before the Court |
| Effect of the parties’ post-filing agreement on deficiencies | Petitioners asserted the Court should apply the parties’ agreement for earlier years | Commissioner had relied on the statutory notices’ deficiency calculations | Court directed that decisions for remaining years follow the parties’ agreement rather than the statutory notices |
| Appropriate remedy after parties’ disclosure under Rule 161 | Petitioners requested reconsideration consistent with the new disclosures and agreement | Commissioner joined the joint motion for reconsideration | Court granted relief: supplementing prior opinion and instructing appropriate decisions will be entered consistent with the agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- None with official reporter citations were identified in the supplemental memorandum opinion.