Paul A. Rendina and Janet Mae Rendina - Page 26

                                       - 26 -                                         

                                                                                     
               Petitioner’s amount realized from the distribution of the              
          condominium units should be reduced by the amount of the                    
          corporation's liabilities to the Posas, Fosses, and Navars that             
          petitioner agreed to assume, and for whose discharge he made the            
          necessary arrangements.  Thus, after subtracting the assumed                
          liabilities of $68,000 from the $92,380 gain ($133,830 amount               
          realized minus $41,450 adjusted basis), petitioner’s realized               
          capital gain is $24,380.                                                    


          IV.  Additions                                                              
               A.  Section 6653(a) negligence addition                                
               Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an                 
          addition to tax for negligence pursuant to section 6653(a).                 
          Section 6653(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax of 5 percent of the           
          portion of the underpayment to which section 6653 applies.                  


          15(...continued)                                                            
          Camelot Court Development, Inc., and a 50-percent interest in               
          Camelot Court Development, Inc. II).  Petitioner objected to                
          their introduction into evidence, because they had not been                 
          submitted to petitioner prior to trial, contrary to our Standing            
          Pretrial Order, for incorporation in the stipulation of facts               
          under Rule 91.  Respondent did not request leave to amend her               
          answer to assert an additional deficiency for these amounts, and            
          did not make any argument on brief that we should treat them as             
          taxable distributions or as reductions in the basis of                      
          petitioner's stock.  Respondent maintained at trial that the                
          documents were offered for impeachment purposes only, under Fed.            
          R. Evid. 607, as an exception to Rule 91 and the Standing                   
          Pretrial Order, and we so regard them.                                      




Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011