Frazier v. CIR ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Filed 7/26/96
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    JOHN L.D. FRAZIER, NANCY F.
    FRAZIER,
    Petitioners - Appellants,
    v.                                                         No. 95-9000
    (D.C. No. 704-92)
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL                         (Commissioner of Internal Revenue)
    REVENUE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    ORDER
    Before BRORBY, McWILLIAMS and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
    Appellee Commissioner of Internal Revenue petitioned for panel rehearing
    concerning our treatment of Tax Court Issue 138 in this case. See Frazier v.
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 95-9000, 
    1996 WL 229181
    , at *3 (10th Cir. May
    7, 1996). We granted rehearing and now alter our judgment.
    With respect to Issue 138, the Tax Court made an adjustment of $533.09 for 1989,
    and an adjustment of $587.82 for 1990. T.C.M. 1994-358 at 54. A footnote referring to
    the latter total explained, “[t]his amount represents the costs of three luncheons involving
    the Salvation Army, which held the meetings at FSB as a convenience to petitioner.
    There is no factual information that this meeting had a FSB business connection.” Id. at
    n.28. Because the expenses listed in the parties’ stipulation of facts included items other
    than Salvation Army luncheons, and because the total cost of the Salvation Army
    luncheons did not correspond to the total of the adjustments, we concluded that the Tax
    Court had erred in calculating this adjustment. We remanded.
    The Commissioner asserts the following explanation for the 1989 and 1990 totals:
    (1) the $533.09 total for 1989 reflected all of the items to which the parties stipulated for
    that year within Issue 138 (one of which was a Salvation Army lunch and the remainder
    of which fell into categories which the Tax Court determined, elsewhere in its opinion, to
    be constructive dividends); and (2) the $587.82 total for 1990 reflected only three
    Salvation Army luncheons and not the other item listed under Issue 138 for that year (an
    expense for which FSB had been reimbursed by a third party). Apparently, the footnote
    quoted above referred only to the 1990 total, and not the 1989 total.
    Taxpayers do not challenge the Commissioner’s version of the facts or his math.
    However, they urge this Court to deny rehearing on the basis that the parties had
    stipulated that all of the Issue 138 expenses were to be attributed to 1990. They claim
    that “[t]he government should not be allowed to ignore the Stipulation of Facts and have
    the Court move [part of] the adjustment from the year 1990 to the year 1989 since this
    was not the year stipulated.” Response at 3. To the extent that the Tax Court erred in this
    respect, we find such error harmless.
    -2-
    We find merit in the Commissioner’s contentions. Accordingly, we VACATE the
    portion of our order addressing Tax Court Issue 138, and no longer find it necessary to
    remand. We now AFFIRM in all respects.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Carlos F. Lucero
    Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-9000

Filed Date: 5/7/1996

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014