- 16 -
Further, in her post-trial brief and without amending her
answer, respondent raises, in the alternative, a new issue that
if the $3 million stated sales price for the sale of the ICPI
stock is not taxable as long-term capital gain in 1986, then the
scheduled installment payments to be received by Mr. Makalintal
in 1987 and 1988 (namely, $150,000 in 1987 and $600,000 in 19882)
should be charged to Mr. Makalintal for each of those years, in
addition to the additional adjusted income already charged to
Mr. Makalintal and petitioner under respondent’s bank deposits
analyses for those years.
In response to respondent’s new alternative issue,
petitioner argues that respondent has not timely and properly
raised an issue herein as to the recognition, for 1987 and 1988,
of any income received by Mr. Makalintal on the installment sale
of his ICPI stock. Further, petitioner argues that any income
that arguably might have been received by Mr. Makalintal in 1987
and 1988 from the installment sale should be treated as already
charged to Mr. Makalintal and to petitioner as part of
respondent’s bank deposits analyses for those years.
On the limited record before us on this issue and in the
absence of any contrary evidence, we conclude that
Mr. Makalintal’s sale of ICPI stock to Mr. de Los Angeles was
2 According to the sales agreement, in 1987 one quarterly
installment payment of $150,000 was to be received, and in 1988
four quarterly installment payments of $150,000 each were to be
received for a total of $600,000.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011