Theodore A. Andros and Joan B. Andros - Page 22

                                        -22-                                          
               Petitioners reported the following amounts of income and loss          
          on their 1979 and 1980 returns with respect to petitioner's                 
          investment in Tandrill:                                                     
                 Income            Short-Term          Long-Term                      
           Year       (Loss)       Capital Gain (Loss)      Capital Gain              
          1979      ($1,758,908)   $153,437                 ---                       
          1980      (34,512)       (860,854)                $1,414,760                
               In April 1980, petitioners filed a Form 1045, Application for          
          Tentative Refund, claiming entitlement to a net operating loss              
          carryback of $1,766,137 from 1979 to 1976.                                  
          Notice of Deficiency                                                        
               In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed                     
          petitioners’ allocable share of losses arising from Tandrill’s              
          transactions on the premise that no profit motive existed with              
          respect to the transactions.16 Respondent determined the following          
          corrected amounts of income and loss petitioner realized through            
          his investment in Tandrill:                                                 
                        Income         Short-Term          Long-Term                 
          Year            (Loss)        Capital Gain        Capital Gain              
          1979  $5,010 ---     ---                                                    
          1980  33,811 ---     ---                                                    



               16   Respondent also determined that “the transactions at              
          issue were either shams or devoid of the substance necessary for            
          recognition for federal income tax purposes.”  Respondent’s                 
          amended answer reiterated this position.  However, at trial,                
          respondent’s counsel informed the Court that the only issue for             
          decision in this regard is whether Tandrill entered into the                
          transactions at issue primarily for profit. We therefore will               
          assume that Tandrill’s transactions were not shams.                         


Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011