Bevel M. and Patricia N. Hoffpauir - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         

          Commissioner, 89 T.C. 986, 993-994 (1987) (even if a taxpayer               
          has a profit objective, the investment is not recognized for                
          tax purposes if the transaction lacks economic substance).                  
          Petitioners have not shown that this case is different from                 
          Mahoney or Cherin; that is, petitioners have not argued or shown            
          that the Century transaction had economic substance.  Petitioners           
          do not dispute respondent's determination that the Century                  
          transaction was a sham.  We conclude that the Century investment            
          program was an economic sham and that it should be disregarded              
          for Federal income tax purposes.  Pasternak v. Commissioner, 990            
          F.2d 893, 898 (6th Cir. 1993), affg. Donahue v. Commissioner,               
          T.C. Memo. 1991-181; Illes v. Commissioner, 982 F.2d 163, 166               
          (6th Cir. 1992) ("If the transaction lacks economic substance,              
          then the deduction must be disallowed without regard to the                 
          'niceties' of the taxpayer's intent"), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-449.           
          Therefore, petitioners may not deduct their cash investment.  In            
          view of our conclusion, we need not decide whether petitioners              
          invested in the Century program with a profit objective or                  
          whether their investment was tax motivated.                                 
               Petitioners claim that they may deduct their cash investment           
          in Century because Century took their cash contributions                    
          fraudulently.  Petitioners have not shown that Century acted with           
          criminal intent to deprive them of their cash contributions.                
          Thus, no theft loss deduction is allowable.  Nor may petitioners            





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011