- 16 - Petitioners also rely on Vebeliunas to avoid the additions to tax for negligence. We believe that he has an interest in seeing petitioners prevail. We find that at no time during the years in issue was Good Shepherd in the business of buying, fixing-up, and selling distressed properties. Moreover, we find that at no time during those years did Good Shepherd carry on any trade or business within the meaning of section 162(a). Expenditures that otherwise would have qualified for deduction under section 162(a), and that related to the establishment of a nursing home or health care facility, were preopening expenses, which for that reason, are nondeductible. Moreover, any expenditures that Good Shepherd may have made with regard to the elderly individuals remaining in residence on the property when it was acquired from Ona Pranckeviciute were expenditures that constitute part of the cost of the property. For that reason, such expenditures are nondeductible. See sec. 263(a). B. Taxes Section 164(a) allows a deduction for certain taxes paid or accrued during the taxable year. For 1986, Good Shepherd claimed a deduction for taxes of $66. Petitioners have failed to substantiate that such taxes were paid. For that reason, no deduction is allowed.Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011