Lumber City Corporation, f.k.a. Neiman-Reed Lumber and Supply Company, Inc. - Page 25

                                       - 25 -                                         

               Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's               
          determinations are erroneous.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,             
          290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  If petitioner shows error in respon-             
          dent's determinations, the Court must decide the amount of                  
          compensation that was reasonable based on the entire record                 
          before us.  Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 564,           
          568 (1974), affd. 528 F.2d 176 (10th Cir. 1975).                            
               In the notice, respondent allowed the entire amount of                 
          $132,629 that petitioner deducted as compensation paid to Mr. Ruf           
          in its Federal income tax return for its taxable year ended                 
          February 29, 1988, and disallowed all but $132,693 of the amount            
          petitioner deducted as compensation paid to Mr. Ruf for its                 
          taxable year ended February 28, 1989, and all of the amounts                
          petitioner deducted as compensation paid to Mr. Ruf for its                 
          taxable years ended February 28, 1990, and February 28, 1991.  At           
          trial and on brief, respondent concedes that petitioner is                  
          entitled to deduct all of the amounts it claimed as compensation            
          paid to Mr. Ruf for the last three years at issue except for                
          $2,100,000 of the $2,600,000 claimed for its taxable year ended             
          February 28, 1990.  Accordingly, we must decide on the basis of             
          the record before us whether petitioner is entitled to deduct for           
          that year an amount of compensation to Mr. Ruf in excess of that            
          conceded by respondent.                                                     







Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011