- 5 -
be decreased in the amount of $1,657,609 to limit any loss
incurred by you and the partnership in connection with the
security transaction to the amount actually at risk in the
transaction, pursuant to Internal Revenue Code §465(b)(4).
7. It is further determined that no deduction is
allowed for any legal, accounting, consulting and
advisory fees claimed in the amount of $125,000 since
you failed to establish that such expenditures were
incurred, and if incurred, are deductible under any
provision of the Internal Revenue Code, including but
not limited to Internal Revenue Code §§ 183 and 212.
Alameda and petitioners filed separate petitions with this
Court. Alameda’s petition was filed at docket No. 7810-05. On
January 29, 2007, this Court entered a stipulated decision in the
case at docket No. 7810-05.
Petitioners’ petition assigned error to all of the
determinations respondent made in his notice of deficiency.
Paragraph 4(g) of petitioners’ petition stated:
The Commissioner erred in his determination that
no deduction is allowed for any legal, accounting,
consulting and advisory fees, claimed in the amount of
$125,000, on the grounds that Petitioners failed to
establish that such expenditures were incurred, and if
incurred, are deductible under any provision of the
Internal Revenue Code.
On September 14, 2006, respondent moved to dismiss the case
herein for lack of jurisdiction upon the ground that the notice
of deficiency was invalid under section 6225. On November 3,
2006, petitioners notified the Court that they did not object to
respondent’s motion. On November 14, 2006, the Court issued an
order to the parties requesting responses, via a written status
report, to the following: (1) Why Alameda does not fall under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007