Electric Controls and Service Co., Inc. - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          respect to payments not received from Clinch River for                      
          petitioner's renovation of the mill.                                        
               On audit, respondent accepted petitioner's reductions of               
          $636,000 and $340,148 to the originally accrued total income of             
          $5,136,000 relating to petitioner's contract with Clinch River.             
          Respondent, however, issued a notice of deficiency disallowing              
          the claimed $600,000 bad debt deduction on the ground that                  
          petitioner had not established that the balance of the debt still           
          owed to petitioner from Clinch River was wholly or partially                
          worthless.                                                                  
               In the notice of deficiency, respondent also determined that           
          petitioner was liable for an addition to tax under section                  
          6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file a 1989 corporate Federal              
          income tax return.  Because petitioner's $60,000 estimated tax              
          payment due with the May 15, 1989, extension request was not                
          received by respondent until 2 days after that date, this $60,000           
          payment was not included by respondent in the computation under             
          section 6651(b) of the amount of the delinquency addition to tax            
          under section 6651(a)(1).                                                   
               Petitioner now argues, in the alternative, that either the             
          $600,000 claimed bad debt deduction should be allowed or the 1989           
          yearend accrued income of $4,159,852 relating to the contract               
          with Clinch River should have been, and should now be, reduced by           
          an additional $600,000 because of the contingencies associated              
          with Clinch River's obligation to make further payments to                  




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011