Alphonse Mourad - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
                    Held, further, P failed to follow the procedures                  
               necessary to claim low-income housing tax credits.                     
                    Held, further, statements made by R’s                             
               representative at a bankruptcy plan confirmation                       
               hearing did not waive R’s determination that P owes                    
               income taxes for 1997.                                                 

               Alphonse Mourad, pro se.                                               
               Steven M. Carr, for respondent.                                        


               RUWE, Judge:  Respondent determined a $189,745 income tax              
          deficiency for petitioner’s 1997 tax year.  The issues presented            
          to the Court are:  (1) Whether petitioner should be taxed on gain           
          from the sale of assets by his S corporation during the                     
          corporation’s bankruptcy proceeding; (2) whether petitioner is              
          entitled to low-income housing tax credits; and (3) whether                 
          respondent waived his claims for payment of petitioner’s 1997               
          income tax.                                                                 
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulation of facts, the second stipulation of facts, and              
          the accompanying exhibits are incorporated herein by this                   
          reference.1  At the time the petition was filed, petitioner                 
          resided in Massachusetts.                                                   


               1Respondent objected to many of the exhibits on the basis of           
          relevancy and/or hearsay.  Even if we accept those exhibits, they           
          would have no effect on our findings of fact or the outcome of              
          this case.                                                                  




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011