Korangy v. C.I.R., 010489 FEDTAX, 25984-87

Docket Nº:25984-87.
Opinion Judge:WELLS, JUDGE:
Party Name:AMILE AND PARVANE KORANGY, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Attorney:Janet M. Meiburger and Carmen Irizarry-Diaz, for the petitioners. Wilton A. Baker, for the respondent.
Case Date:January 04, 1989
Court:United States Tax Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

56 T.C.M. (CCH) 989

AMILE AND PARVANE KORANGY, Petitioners

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

No. 25984-87.

United States Tax Court

January 4, 1989

Janet M. Meiburger and Carmen Irizarry-Diaz, for the petitioners.

Wilton A. Baker, for the respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WELLS, JUDGE:

Petitioners have filed a Motion to Modify or, in the Alternative, Vacate Stipulation of Agreed Adjustments as Based on a Fundamental Mistake of Fact and Therefore Not in Accordance with the Settlement Between the Parties (the ‘ Motion‘ ). Petitioners seek to avoid the provisions of a Stipulation of Agreed Adjustments (the ‘ Stipulation‘ ) signed by them and respondent, and base the Motion on their contention that a single deposit to one of their bank accounts in the amount of $227,987.50 mistakenly was included twice in the Stipulation's calculation of their 1982 taxable income.

Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioners' Federal income tax as follows:

Additions to Tax Under Sections1
Deficiency 6653(a) 6653(b)(1) 6653(b)(2) 6661
1981 $ 91,259 $4,563 -0- -0- -0-
1982 $321,094 -0- $160,547 * $31,560
1983 $155,593 -0- $ 79,038 * $15,559
1984 $308,046 -0- $155,678 * $30,805
In his Answer, respondent asserted as an alternative position that petitioners were liable for additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6653(a)(1) and (2) for any of the years 1982-1984 in which the fraud additions under section 6653(b) were inapplicable. Petitioners filed their petition while residing in Potomac, Maryland, and the case was set for trial on the May 23, 1988, trial calendar in Washington, D.C. On May 21, 1988, the parties signed the Stipulation. At the calendar call on May 23, 1988, the parties filed the Stipulation with the Court, and accordingly, no trial was held. The Stipulation consists of adjustments schedules for the four years in issue and a one-page explanatory statement which states, ‘ The below-signed parties agree that the attached schedule of agreed adjustments identified the manner in which all undisputed issues have been resolved.‘ No final computation of the dollar amount of the deficiency for any year is set forth in the Stipulation. Rather, the adjustments schedules are a line-by-line list of all issues which had been in dispute for each of the taxable years 1981 through 1984. The format of the adjustments schedules, as shown by the entry for the item now in dispute, is as follows:
SOURCE AMOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT
Original Respondent Petitioner
Description Year Adjustment Concedes Concedes
Unexplained Deposits 1982 637,647 93,120 544,527
The adjustments schedules showed either a partial concession by bo th petitioners and respondent or a total concession by one party for each year for each item of income or loss and for each of the additions to tax. At the time the Stipulation was filed, the Court ordered that a decision document be filed by July 22, 1988. On July 21, 1988, petitioners' counsel sent a letter to respondent's counsel (the ‘ July 21 letter‘ ) indicating that petitioners' position, inter alia, was that the agreed upon deficiency for 1982 was $270,415. After the Court extended the time for filing of a decision document, respondent filed a decision document on August 15, 1988, which contained, inter alia, a 1982 deficiency in the amount of $270,415 - the amount set forth in the July 21 letter from petitioners' counsel. On September 6, 1988, petitioners filed several documents with the Court, including the Motion now before us. Petitioners' documents also included a proposed computation of decision showing a 1982 deficiency in the amount of $156,421. The difference between that deficiency amount and the $270,415 set forth in the July 21 letter and respondent's proposed decision is attributable to what petitioners assert is an erroneous inclusion of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP