HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.nytax/nytcas0028 and id is 1 raw text is: 1995 New York Tax Cases
J-1
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS
In the Matter of the Petition
of
TOMASINA FURNARI DETERMINATION
DTA NO. 811504
for Redetermination of a Deficiency or for
Refund of New York State and New York City
Personal Income Taxes under Article 22 of the
Tax Law and the Administrative Code of the City
of New York for the Years 1984 and 1985.
Petitioner, Tomasina Furnari, c/o Murray Appleman, Esq., 225 Broadway,
New York, New York 10007, filed a petition for redetermination of a
deficiency or for refund of personal income taxes under Article 22 of the
Tax Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New York for the years
1984 and 1985.
On March 15, 1993 and March 23, 1993, respectively, petitioner, by her
representative, Murray Appleman, Esq., and the Division of Taxation, by
William F. Collins, Esq. (Donald C. Dewitt, Esq., of counsel), waived a
hearing and agreed to submit the matter for determination based on documents
and briefs to be submitted by July 20, 1994. Petitioner's brief was
submitted on June 1, 1994. The Division of Taxation filed a responding
letter in lieu of a brief on June 9, 1994. Petitioner's reply brief was
submitted on July 6, 1994. After review of the evidence and arguments
presented, Brian L. Friedman, Administrative Law Judge, renders the
following determination.
ISSUES
I. Whether petitioner's claim for refund of the New York City and
State personal income taxes, penalties and interest levied from the joint
bank account she shares with her husband should be granted because the tax
obligation was solely her husband's and/or she was an innocent spouse
under the Tax Law, or whether petitioner was properly assessed as she was
jointly and severally liable for the taxes owed.
II. Whether the assessment should be dismissed and the amount levied
refunded as the Division of Taxation, in filing its answer to the petition,
hinged its case on a subsection of the Tax Law which it incorrectly cited.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Petitioner, Tomasina Furnari, and her husband, Christopher Furnari,
failed to file either individua] or joint Federal or State income tax](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.nytax/nytcas0028&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)