- 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