- 61 -
31, 1985, and (2) the subject matter of which was the construc-
tion, reconstruction, or acquisition of such property.
During December 1985, petitioners executed a lease for the
premises at which NDV was located. That lease provided that the
leased premises were to be used to operate a restaurant. Peti-
tioners argue that, in order to operate the leased premises as a
restaurant, they were required to purchase property for use at
the leased premises and that therefore the binding contract
exception applies to property that they purchased for use at NDV.
We disagree. The subject of the lease executed by petitioners in
December 1985 was the use of the premises at which NDV was
located, and not the construction, reconstruction, or acquisition
of property for use at that premises. Consequently, the binding
contract exception does not apply to the lease executed by
petitioners for the premises at which NDV was located.
On the instant record, we find that petitioners failed to
prove that they are entitled to a general business credit carry-
forward from 1986. We therefore sustain respondent's determina-
tion on that issue.
To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of the parties,
Decision will be entered under
Rule 155.
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Last modified: May 25, 2011