Robert P. and Christine M. Lolli - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
               At trial, respondent orally moved for an increased                     
          deficiency, arguing that the $3,000 loss claimed with respect to            
          "Horizon America" for 1991 was duplicative of the business loss             
          claimed for 1990, and should, therefore, be disallowed.  Pursuant           
          to the Court's instruction, respondent reduced her oral motion to           
          writing, and filed a motion for increased deficiency in                     
          petitioners' 1991 Federal income tax in the amount of $487 on               
          May 4, 1995.  Respondent's motion for increased deficiency was              
          granted on June 5, 1995.                                                    
          Discussion                                                                  
               We begin with the often-stated principle that respondent's             
          determinations are presumed correct, and petitioners generally              
          bear the burden of proving otherwise.  Rule 142(a); Welch v.                
          Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).                                        
               Business loss deductions                                               
               At trial, petitioner explained that the $24,675 "business              
          loss" claimed for the first time in the amended petition                    
          represents a deduction for the "theft" of sums he invested during           
          1988 in a partnership identified as "Sonoran Verde Landscaping".            
          We need not address the details of this testimony, however, as              
          the following exchange between respondent and petitioner is                 
          sufficient to dispose of the issue:                                         

                    Q:   Okay.  And you're claiming you realized [that                
               you were] * * * swindled * * * in 1988 or early 1989,                  
               is that right, January * * * of '89?                                   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011