Joseph Francis Cunningham - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
               For the years 1987, 1988, and 1989, FOTA filed its Federal             
          income tax returns in accordance with an election made pursuant             
          to section 1362(a), commonly referred to as an S election.  For             
          the years in issue, petitioner's individual Federal income tax              
          returns reflected petitioner's distributive share of the losses             
          incurred by FOTA in the amounts of $45,035, $23,180, and $63,512,           
          respectively.  Although the record is incomplete as to the                  
          circumstances surrounding the filing of FOTA's Federal income tax           
          returns for the years in issue and respondent's examination of              
          those returns, it appears that respondent made adjustments to the           
          amount of losses reported by FOTA for the years 1987, 1988, and             
          1989.  In a portion of FOTA's examination report included with              
          the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner, respondent                   
          provided the following explanation for certain of the                       
          adjustments:3                                                               
               The deductions for business use of your dwelling unit                  
               are limited to the gross income from the business                      
               activity after subtracting the business part of your                   
               real estate taxes, mortgage interest, and expenditures                 
               required for the activity but not allocable to the use                 
               of the unit itself.                                                    

          [emphasis added].  The Court was invited to ignore the exhibit              
          when this inconsistency was called to the attention of the                  
          parties in a posttrial conference.  Because the technical                   
          ownership of the building has no impact on the outcome of the               
          issue under consideration, we honor the stipulation and proceed             
          as though petitioner was, in fact, the owner of the building.               
          3Certain allocations and other adjustments were made by                     
          respondent in connection with her examinations of FOTA and                  
          petitioner.  Petitioner only contests the adjustments that depend           
          upon the resolution of the issue disputed in this proceeding.               




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011