- 2 -
years in issue. According to the Court of Appeals, "Because it
appears that the Tax Court gave undue weight to the sloppy
operation of the business, while failing to consider other
probative factors, we remand for a more complete consideration of
the relevant circumstances." Ranciato v. Commissioner, 52 F.3d
23, 24 (2d Cir. 1995), vacating and remanding T.C. Memo.
1993-536. The Court of Appeals referred to four facts, an
analysis of which we did not include in Ranciato I. The facts
were: (1) Petitioner was a middle-class wage earner, (2) his
losses were "actual", (3) his store had prior years of profit,
and (4) he had previously moved his store’s location. Ranciato
v. Commissioner, 52 F.3d at 26-27.
We have reconsidered the facts of this case, heeding
Ranciato v. Commissioner, 52 F.3d at 23, and are left with a firm
belief that petitioner did not operate his store during the
subject years with the requisite profit intent. Accordingly, we
adhere to our holding in Ranciato I.
Section references, unless otherwise stated, are to the
Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable years in issue.
Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure. We use the term "petitioner" to refer solely to
Anthony Ranciato; Lucille Ranciato is a party mainly because she
filed joint Federal income tax returns with Anthony Ranciato
during the subject years.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011