- 84 -
income to Mr. Mussman in 1989. They point out that in the notice
of deficiency issued to the Mussmans, respondent failed to treat
any portion of the $88,484 in payments as dividend income to Mr.
Mussman in 1988. They assert that the $75,432 of cellular
telephone investment account expenditures NITCO recorded includes
$33,445.68 in payments made by NITCO in 1988. Similarly, they
assert that the $13,052 of other investment account expenditures
NITCO recorded includes $9,562.42 in payments NITCO made in 1988.
Respondent, on the other hand, disputes that any of the $88,484
in expenditures was made by NITCO during 1988.
The record does not support petitioners' claim that the
$88,484 in expenditures includes cellular telephone expenditures
that were made by NITCO during 1988, rather than during 1989. In
the Schedule B-8 to the 1989 annual report it filed with the
IURC, NITCO reported that it had $75,342 of "deferred cellular
charges" and $13,052 of deferred "other" charges. Yet, in the
Schedule B-8 to the 1988 annual report it filed with the IURC,
NITCO reported that it had $390,000 of "extraordinary
retirements" and $39,599 of deferred "other" charges. The
Schedule B-8 to the 1988 report reflected no "deferred cellular
charges" for 1988. We conclude that petitioners have failed to
establish that the $88,484 in expenditures includes payments that
were made by NITCO in 1988.
At pages 39-40, supra, of our findings, we have attempted to
allocate and attribute the $88,484 of expenditures to specific
matters as best as we can on the record presented. We
Page: Previous 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011