IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Carl Robert Wagenknecht Jr.,

Appellant,

V.

William W. Wilkins,Tax Commissioner of Ohio,

Appellee.

Appeal from the OhioBoard of Tax Appeals

Board of Tax AppealsCase No. 2006-T-1007

Supreme Court Case Number:2008-0095

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Now comes Appellant, Carl Robert Wagenknecht Jr., pursuant to Rule XI , Section 2 of the

Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and hereby respectfully requests this Honorable

Court to reconsider its JUDGMENT ENTRY and OPINION filed December 31, 2008 attached as

Exhibit A and instead grant in Appellant's favor all issues presented in this case.

Appellant does not dispute the constitutional right for Ohio to tax its Citizens , the means

to deterinine an alleged tax owed, and the procedure to collect the alleged tax owed. This Honorable

Court's JUDGMENT ENTRY and OPINION filed in this case is a logical conclusion based upon

the Court's underlying assumptions that (1) all Citizens of Ohio are required to file Form 1040 and

(2) that the Internal Revenue Service nor their employees make errors or omissions. But what if the

Internal Revenue Service and its' employees have made errors as Appellant has alleged and

documented, and further that Appellant is not required to file Form 1040, then would not the

underlying assumptions made by this Honorable Court be incorrect?

I

^daDDJAN 12 zoo9

CLERK OF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO

The Tax Connnissioner of Ohio begins with the premise that it is mandatory for Citizens of

Ohio to file Form 1040 U.S. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN. The Ohio form required to

be filed is FORM IT-1040. (Note: for 1996 an amended return was the Form IT-1040 with

the caption, Amended Return, written on it). The information placed on the Ohio Form IT-1040

must be identical to the Federal Form 1040, for example AGI. It is prima facie evidence that if a

Citizen is required to file Form 1040 then said Citizen had an income tax liability pursuant to the

Internal Revenue Code. As such one could conclude that if the IRS alleges that the AGI has been

changed that such action would be valid. As stated and published by the Internal Revenue Service,

under a specific set of circumstances there are Citizens who are not required to file Form 1040.

What if one of those Citizens was a resident of Ohio and was not required to file Form 1040 or

prohibited by law to file Form 1040? What if the information provided to the State of Ohio by the

Internal Revenue Service contains errors which went undetected by the IRS and subsequently by the

State of Ohio? What does the Citizen do? What does the Citizen file? What is the Citizen's

recourse? The documentation delivered to the State of Ohio taxing authority from the Internal

Revenue Service regarding the files and accounting for Appellant, Carl R Wagenknecht, Jr. was

riddled with error and went uncorrected.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, by and through counsel, admitted on the record

in United States Tax Court , Docket No. 8293-07 , that Appellant Carl R. Wagenknecht Jr. is not

required to file Form 1040. (See attached Exhibit B). Furthermore, the record before this

Honorable Court is filled with documentation and reference to information maintained by the

Internal Revenue Service regarding Appellant, that is incorrect, invalid and to date is awaiting

correction. Additionally, the record documents that the information received by the Ohio Tax

2

Commissioner from the Internal Revenue Service was not reliable, credible, or accurate. Thus, the

fundamental assumptions that the Court relied on were not valid and as a result the Court's

conclusion was logical but incorrect.

This Honorable Court held that " If Wagenknecht had filed the amended return but withheld

payment, he could have pursued his petition for reassessment on the merits without payment".

(Exhibit A. Opinion at p. 6) However, the required Amended Return used for 1996 was Form IT-

1040 that the tax preparer would mark as an amended return. However, after much research and

discussion with the tax preparer, tax consultants and employees of the Ohio State Tax

Commissioner, it was determined that, the State of Ohio and the Ohio Tax Commissioner failed to

publish or identify a Form for use for Citizens who for whatever reason, are not required or

prohibited from filing Internal Revenue Service Form 1040. The Appellant has stated that he is not

required and prohibited from filing Form 1040 which results in Appellant not being able to file Ohio

Form IT-1040. As explained in Appellant's Merit Brief, it is the good faith belief of Appellant, that

if Appellant filed Form IT- 1040 he would be forced to violate both federal and state law.

This Honorable Court further stated that "Wagenknecht overlooks the possibility of filing

correspondence along with the return that could express his reservations about the federal

assessment".(Exhibit A. Opinion at p.6 ) When a Citizen completes a return which is signed under

penalty of perjury, the Citizen in essence is stipulating to the truthfulness of the information

contained on the return. Hence, extraneous correspondence would be of no legal effect.

Furthermore. Modification to the return and/or including attachments to the return could make the

return invalid.

Appellant had reservations regarding filing the original Ohio 1996 return which caused both

3

Carl R. Wagenknecht Jr. and Jacqueline J. Miller-Wagenknecht to sign the return without prejudice,

reserving all rights associated therewith. In this situation, the Ohio Tax Commissioner made no

attempt to contact Jacqueline J Miller-Wagenknecht to make inquiry as to her then status or her

reservation of such rights. Likewise the Appellant's Affidavit which the Court referenced was filed

in 2000 with the intent to ensure that the Ohio Department of Taxation was kept informed of the

unresolved dispute with the Internal Revenue Service regarding inaccuracy of information and error

in their system of records. The records reflect that Appellant was in communication with the Ohio

Department of Taxation during this time period that is germane to the matter before the Court.

This Court's holding is a Catch-22 not only for Appellant but for all Citizens in like or

similar situation. To be heard before the BTA a Citizen must complete an amended return under

penalty of perjury that the Citizen agrees with any alleged findings of the Internal Revenue Service.

Then and only then can the Citizen argue that the information from the Internal Revenue Service

contained on the amended return, which had to be executed under penalty of perjury was not

accurate, reliable or credible. And further, to argue that the information was acquired beyond the

date of the statute of limitations and to argue whether the Citizen, in this case the Appellant, was

not required to file Form 1040 which then impacts Ohio's Form. Such action cold expose this

Citizen or others to a violation of perjury laws.

In addition, the Court's holding requires prepayment and fails to consider that the information

from the Internal Revenue Service may indeed, be incorrect, not valid regardless of the amount

alleged owed. The public, the Congress, the Senate, the Inspector General and other oversight

agencies are fully aware of the irregularity within the IRS, including but not limited to error to

accounting, transcripts and master files which in some cases are resultant from employee error or the

4

grossly outdated computer systems & programs being utilized by the Internal Revenue Service.

And, in some cases disgruntled and vindictive employees.

The bottom line is this. What if the amount alleged owed to the Internal Revenue Service

by a Citizen wlio makes Ohio his home is incorrect, as a result of error. And wliat if that error was

so outrageously incorrect, it was for Millions of dollars. Would this Court require the millions oi'

dollars be paid before allowing one of your Citizens a voice, an opportunity for correction, an

opportunity for due process? What recourse does the Citizen have?

For reasons set forth above, the Supreme Court should grant in Appellant's favor, all issues

presented in this case.

Respectfully Submitted,

Carl R Wagenknecht, Jr., Aopelldcft, Pro'Se174 Cheltenham LaneMunroe Falls, Ohio 44262330 388 8968

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

was served on Damion M. Clifford, Assistant Attorney General, counsel for Appellee, TAX

COMMISSIONER OF OHIO by mailing the same on f2 o4 in a postage paid wrapper

addressed as follows:

DAMION M. CLIFFORDAssistant Attorney General30 East Broad Street 25th floorColumbus, Ohio 43215

A

Carl R. WagenkneAppellant, Pro Se174 Cheltenham LaneMunroe Falls, Ohio 44262

Date: 4, C2^ Telephone : 330-388-8968

6

,ql4^ ^§nvr.em.e ^Oaxt af c04i1aC E_iliCi t

`31Sitl..^^^ t l ttil 'vn ,. ...

Carl R. Wagenknecht. Jr. Case No. 2008-0095

JUDGMENT EN12Y

Williant W. Wilkins [Richard A. Le^in], APPEAL FROM THl?"l'ax C.ommissioner of Ohio BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

This cause, liere on appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals, was considercd in themanner prescribed by law. On consideration thereof, the decisiou of the Boa-d ol"I'axAppeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion rendered herein.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Board of Tax Appeals bNcertifying a copy of thisjudgment entry and filing it with the Boarcl of 'I ax Appeals.

(Board of Tax Appeals; No. 2006T1007)

_^^_^

lUntil tliis opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports aelvance sheets, it rnac be cited as

M'rrgerdrneclrt n. Levirr, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-6812.1

NOTICE

'i'his slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in

an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested

to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio.

65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or

other Iormal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may bc

made before the opinion is published.

SLIP OPI.NTON No. 2008-OH1o-6812

WAGENKNECHT, APPELLANT, v. LEVIN, TAX COMM12., APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sttects, it

may be cited as Wagenkn.echt v. Levin, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-6812.]

R.C. 51'4,7.10- Petitiota for reassessmeni - Failure to make req¢rired pcrrmen! on

the assessment - Board ofTax Appeals decision ctffirrned.

(No. 2008-0095 - December 17, 2008 - Decided December 31, 2008.)

APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2006-T-{ 007.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Carl R. Wagenknecht Jr., contests an assessment ol'

unpaid personal income tax as to the 1996 tax year, which the Tax Commissioner

issued against him on December 8, 2005. Wagenknecht initiated the present

proceedings by filing a petition for reassessment, dated February 7, 2006. llie

cotwnissioner's final detertnination, issued on May 19, 2006, dismissed the

petition on jurisdictional grounds. On appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA")

aranted the connnissioner's motion and summarily affirmed that dismissal. After

SUPREME COUR"F OF OH[O

a carefiil reNie\\ of the record in light o1' Wagenknecht's arguments. \\c tind nu

legal crrot'. and we affirtn the BTA.

Background

2} This case originates in a redetermination by the Internal Revcnuc

Service ("IRS") of Wagenknecht's adjusted gross income ("AC;I-) 1br 1990.

When the IRS inakes such an adjustment, R.C. 5747.10 requires an Ohio taxpalver

to file an amended Ohio return that incorporates the new AGl figure and

eomputes its effect on the Ohio tax liability for that year. The Tax Cuniniissioncr

found that Wagenknecht had failed to file the required Ohio personal income tax

-cturn and proceeded to compute an Ohio income-tax deficiency based on the ne\\

AGI figure. llie commissioner also found that "[t]here is no further pending

action before the Internal Revenue Service pertaining to this taxpayer f'or this tax

year" and that "[t]he assessment by the Internal Revenue Service has been tinall,^

deternined.° Pinally, because Wagenknecht had failed to make [he rciluirecl

pavment on the assessment as required by R.C. 5747.13(E)(2), the commissioncr

ruled that he lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

{¶ 3} Wagenknecht timely filed his notice of appeal at the Board ofTax

Appeals on August 3, 2006, asserting among other tliings that the commissioner

had erred by denying jurisdiction under R.C. 5747.13: the applicable division of

R.C. 5747.13, according to Wagenknecht, was R.C. 5747.13(E)(8). not R.C.

5747.13(E)(2). Additionally, Wagenkneeht contended that the commissioner haci

erred by finding that "[t]here is no further pending action before the Internal

Revenue Service pertinent to this taxpayer for this tax year" and pointed to t\\o

cases, one pending in the United States Tax Court and one in the United States

District Couii.

{1J 4} At the BTA, the commissioner filed a motion to affirm his final

deterntination, which Wagenlcnecht opposed. Wagenknecht's response reiterated

his assertions that R.C. 5747.13(E)(2) with its prepayment requirement did not

2

January Term, 2008

apply. and he referred onc-e more to the two cases pertaining to tax year 1996 that

were pending in the federal courts. Wagenknecht also filed subpoenas to sumnwn

witnesses to a hearing at the BTA and submitted,a number of proposed hearing

cxhibits.

{q( 5} On Deceniber 21, 2007, the B'I'A granted the commissioner's

motion and affirnied his deternrination. The BTA found that the existing record

establiShed that the IRS liad increased Wagenknecht's 1996 federal A.GI bv

$308.600. Although the adjustmeuts altered his Ohio income tax liability, the

BTA found that Wagenknecht "failed to file an amended return Nvith [tiie

comnlissioner], as reduired by R.C. 5747.10," with the result that "palulent of the

assessment, i.e. the tax anct interest, becarne a condition precedent to Mr.

Wagenl:necht's ability to have the assessment reviewed" under R.C.

>747.1 3(Ii)(2). Because the record showed that Wagetiknecht had not paid, the

BTA concluded that the commissioner was without jtuisdiction to consider N11.

Wagenirnecht's petition for reassessment. By granting the commissioner'.s

motion, the BTA in effect denied Wagenknecht a hearing, even withrespect tn

jurisdictional issues.

{^,, 61l Ort appeal to this court, Wagetik-ilecht urges tltree propositions ef

law that broadly contest his obligation to file tax returns. Subsunied within the

sweep of his arguments is, once again, the contention that prepayment of' the

assessment is not required on account of Wagenlozecht's having allegedly "`lilcd

any required return that is applicable for 1996." Wagenlniecht also faults thc

BTA for denying him a hearing, in par[ieular one devoted to the jurisdictional

ISSLICS.

{j( 7} We hold that the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully wiren it

affirmed the conuirissioner's dismissal for nonpayment of the assessrneiit. `Xe

therefore aftirm.

Analysis

3

January Term. 2008

{¶ ]0} The Tax Commissioner's determination recited that the IRS

assessment had been "fiually detennined." On appeal of that determination.

Wagenknecht had the but-den to prove that finding to be clearly unreasonable cr

unlawful. See A'usseibeh v. Zaino, 98 Ohio St.3d 292, 2003-Ohio-855, 784

N.I:-2d 93, 11 10. The BTA correctly concluded that the taxpayer iailed to carn

that burden.

{^j 11} Before this court, Wagenknecht renews his contention that the

tcderal liability remains in dispute in the two federal cases. That argtunent l1tils

because t-ecent decisions issued by the federal courts in both cases show that the

rclevant substantive issue - the amount of Wagenknecht's 1996 AGI - is not, as a

matter of federal procedural law, a viable issue in eithet- case. First. Wagenknecht

cites case No. 06-00726 in the United States District Court for the Noi-thern

District of Ollio. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

recently aftirmed the district court's dismissal of the part of Wagenknecht's

complaint that related to the amount of federal tax liability on the grounds that

jurisdiction "related to incorne tax liabilities lies solely in the Tax C.ourt."

f4'ager2ksi.echt v. United States (C.A.6, 2008), 533 F.3d 412, 416.

(1112) As for the Tax Court case, that court decided on July 29, 2008 that

the "tmderlying tax liability" was not properly before the courl because of a

procedural default by Wagenlcnecht. Wagenkriecht v. Cornnli•. of h7ter aa!

Revenue (2008), T.C. Metno. 2008-179. Indeed, the tax court granted complete

summary judgment to the government.

{¶ 13} But even if Wagenknecht could argue that further appeals will

vindicate his position, another event triggered the unfulfilled requirement that he

file the amended return under R.C. 5747.10. The commissioner found that thc

IItS had assessed the federal deficiency against Wagenknecht, and Wagenknecl t

5

SUPREME (,Olll2"I' Of OI-lIO

never proposed to show that the act of assessment did not occur.' Under IL('.

5747.10. the federal governtnent's act of assessing the deficiency triggers thc

liline rcquirenient, regardless ofthe Gnality ofthe,federal detertnination.

{¶ 14) Accordingly, because Wagenknecht was required to file an

amended ret>.u-n and failed to do so, he was obligated to prepal- the Ohio

assessment in order to receive a hearing on his petition for reassessment.

3. The mnended-return,f ling requirement tvas not ren.reasonable.

(11151 Wagetilcnecht also contends that Ohio law should not be construed

to require him to file a return declaring, under penalties of perjury, an adjusted t.u

liabilitv so long as he continues to dispute it. This argumeut fails for tt+o reasons.

First. Wagenknecht's federal AGI had been "finally determined;' so that his

personal disagreement with that figure was no longer legally signiticant: R.C.

5747.10(A) required him to file an Ohio amended return and pay the amount ol

any deticiency. Second, Wagenknecht overlooks the possibility of iiling

correspondence along with the return that could express his reservations about the

hederal assessnient.

{1116} Moreover, filing the amended return without payment would not

have precluded Wagenknecht from asserting his claim that the federal assessment

is substantively wrong. If Wagenknecht had filed the amended return but

witliheld payment, he could have pursued his petition for reassessment on the

merits witliout prepaying.

4. Wagenknecht advances substantive arguments that may not be hecrrd.

(¶ 17) Wagenknecht asserts that the federal government conunitted

iactual and legal errors when it assessed a deficiency against him. I-tis theories

2. Indeed, fhe United States Tax Court stated that the IRS assessed the federal defciency for 1996on January 10, 2003. T.C. Memo 2008-179 at 5. Ordinarily, we do not refer to decisions of othercouits in collateral cases to determine the operative facts in a case pending before this court. Inthe present case, however, refening to the federal decisions for the assessment date is not

6

January Term, 2008

include the contention that he was not required to file a federal Form 1040

because oi'IRS noncompliance with the federal Paperwork Reduction Act aod the

nonapplicability of Form 1040 to the general publi^. Additionally. Wagenkne.cht

maintains that the comtnissioner may not rely on the validity ot' a fedcral

assessment when he issues an assessment for failure to pay under R.C.

5 747.10(A) - on this view, the commissioner may issuc his own assessrneut onl.\

after peri'orming an independent determination of the validitv of the federal

assessment.

{1118} These arguments raise challenges to the merits of the assessmcnt.

Ordinarily such argunients would be considered and resolved througl the petition

for reassessment. But Wagenknecht failed to invoke the commissioner's

jurisdiction because he neither filed the amended return nor paid the assessment.

{¶ 191 Although Wagenknecht appears to treat his substantive arouments

as hearing on the jurisdictional issue, they do not. The substantive argunrcnts

contest the ralidit7) of the commission.er's assessment; they do not. even if

meritorious, release Wagenknecht from the duties under R.C. 5747.10 or

5747. L3(h)(2) either to have filed the atnended return or to pay the assessmcnt in

order to receive consideration of his petition for reassessment.

5. ffageiikrzecht was ixot entitled to a hearing at the BTA.

{¶ 20} Wagenknecht sought a hearing at the BTA, and in his notice of

appeal to the court he stated that the BTA "erred by not allowing Appellant to

present evidence at a hearing before the Board (which evidence was proffer-eci in

Appellant's Response In Opposition To Appellee's Motion To Aftirnl Tlic l as

C.ommissionet's Final Determination), to prove that the Appellanl was not

required to make payment with the Petition for Reassessment." In Brotrn r•.

Levin, 119 Oliio St.3d 335, 2008-Ohio-4081, 894 N.E.2d 35, ¶ 10, we noted that

irnproper, because Wagenknecht places them at issue when he argues that those cnses show acontinaation of the federal dispute.

7

SUPREML COURT OF 01110

R.C. 5717.02, the statute that governs appeals fi'om determinations o(, the I a\

Commissioner, states that "upon the application of any interested party'- the 131A

"shall order the hearing of additional evidence." We observed that the mandator.\

language of R.C. 5717.02 itnplied "as a general matter. that the B°I'A h^ts no

.judgmentpower analogous to that of a court in a civil action to grant summar%

under Civ.R. 56 or dismissal for failure to state a claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6)."

Ld. 9 11. Against that background, we must address the question whether the

13T:\ could clecline to hold a hearing and aftirm the dismissal of the petition for

reassessment.

{j( 21} We hold that the BTA properly issued a sununary affirmance. I'he

only legitimatejurisdicfioaaal issues in the case coneerned (1) Wagenknccht's

obligation to file an amendecl return under R.C. 5747.10 and (2) his obligation to

prepay under R.C. 5747.13(E)(2). Quite simply, the factual proof that

Wagenlcnecht proposed to present at the BTA related to the procedural and

substantive validity of the commissioner's assessment, not to the commissioner's

jurisdiction to consider the petition. Although Wagenkneeht did ol'fer to pro\c

the pendency of the federal cases, he never offered to prove that the federal

governinent had not issued an assessment - an event that by itself triggers the

requirement to file the amended return. Nor did he assert that he had in fact p,tid

the assessment. Under these circumstances, the BTA correctly found an abscnce

o[ jurisdiction as a matter of law. As we have held. a litigant's right to a hearing

under R.C. 5717.02 does not encompass a right to present evidence on points that

are not jurisdictionally before the BTA. See Brown, 119 Ohio St.3d 335, 2008-

Ohio-4081, 894 N.E.2d 35, ¶ 24.

Conclusion

{¶ 221 For all the foregoing reasons, the BTA acted reasonabl.\and

lawfully wlien it affirmed the commissioncr's dismissal o1' tlie petition I'or

reassessment. We therefore affirm the BTA's decision.

8

.lanuary Term. 2008

Decision atCrmed.

N901ER. C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON. O'CGNNOR.

O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, J.l., concur.

Carl R. Wagenlaiecht Jr., pro se.

Naiicy Hardin Rogers, Attorney General, and Damion M. Clifford.

Assistant Attornev General, for appellee.

9

1

IN THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT

In the matter of:

CARL ROBERT WAGENKNECHT, JR.,

Petitioner,

V.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent.

Docket No.: 8293-07

Room 3013Celebrezze Federal Building1240 East Ninth StreetCleveland, Ohio

Monday,June 2, 2008

The above-entitled matter came on for trial,

pursuant to notice, at 3:03 p.m.

BEFORE: HONORABLE JUAN F. VASQUEZJudge

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner:

CARL ROBERT WAGENKNECHT, JR., Pro Se174 Cheltenham LaneMunro Falls, Ohio 44262(330) 388-8968

For the Respondent:

KATHERINE LEE KOSAR, EsquireInternal Revenue ServiceAssociate Area Counsel (SBSE)One Cleveland Center, Suite 12001375 East Ninth StreetCleveland, Ohio 44114(216) 858-7320

Heritage Reporting Corporation(202) 628-4888

9

1 other.

2 And based upon the presentation of evidence

3 that, in good faith, complies with the code, the

4 findings will support the Petitioner's petition, and

5 that will demonstrate that the burden of proof in this

6 case lies with the Respondent to establish any alleged

7 tax liabilities. Thank you.

8 THE COURT: Thank you. Respondent's

9 counsel, Ms. Kosar?

10 MS. KOSAR: Thank you, Your Honor. Your

11 Honor, this should be a fairly simple case.

12 Petitioner failed to file a Form 1040 for 2002, 2003,

13 and 2004. He had wage income in each of those years.

14 In 2004, he had distributions from some kind

15 of qualified plan and some interest income. In 2004,

16 there is a penalty, under Section 72(t), for premature

17 distribution on the qualified plan. Also, in 2004,

18 there is the 6651(a)(1) and (a)(2) penalties attached

19 just to that year.

20 It may be, under the case law, that

21 Petitioner doesn't have to file a Form 1040, but he

22 has to file something that purports to be a return,

23 and just the most cursory review of what it is that

24 Petitioner filed that purports to be a return, in

25 Exhibits 1-P, 2-P, and 3-P, show clearly, under the

Heritage Reporting Corporation(202) 628-4888

1aq

Certificate of Transcriber and Proofreader

ht ^r. ^'. ^rnrnrSSla^ ^rCASE NAME : CQ( I94e4t War) ktZeo

DOCKET NUMBER:

We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the

foregoing pages, numbers _L through W, inclusive,

are the true, accurate and complete transcript

prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic

recording by Toe^ &Sa4C1.t , on ^JU,fL2. Z DC%O^ ,

before the United States Tax Court at its session in

liV' ' CU'1^ , Ghlo , in accordance with the applicable

provisions of the current verbatim reporting contract

of the Court, and have verified the accuracy of the

transcript by comparing the typewritten transcript

against the verbal recording.

4

Theodore Fambro

(Transcriber)

k&e.r o c^'^ ^aolo^(Proofreader)

Heritage Reporting Corporation(202) 628-4888