- 35 -
In the notice of deficiency, respondent calculated the
amount of petitioners' Texana Capital stock loss by subtracting
what respondent determined petitioners' basis to be (zero) from
the amount petitioners deducted ($199,600). Respondent gives no
reason for making this calculation if respondent was intending to
challenge the timing of petitioners' deduction. Respondent also
determined that petitioners did not establish that the amount
deducted "was (a) a loss, and (b) sustained by you." Respondent
describes the determination as "broadly worded". While the
language in the previous sentence is broad, the notice of
deficiency also included the computation described earlier in
this paragraph. As we concluded above regarding the Dondi
Financial stock, we conclude that the notice of deficiency
challenged petitioners' basis in their Texana Capital stock, but
not that it became worthless in 1988. See par. A-4, p. 15.
Thus, we need not address respondent's argument on brief that
petitioners did not prove that their Texana Capital stock became
worthless in 1988.
If we had to decide whether 1988 was the year in which
petitioners' Texana Capital stock became worthless, however, we
would find that 1988 was the appropriate year. In February 1987,
petitioner agreed to sell his Texana Capital stock. Although a
final agreement was never executed, petitioners would have made a
$44,000 profit on the sale. This suggests that the Texana
Capital stock had value in 1987. There is no indication in the
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011