- 8 - For purposes of section 6013(e), grossly erroneous items are defined as "any item of gross income attributable to such spouse which is omitted from gross income," and "any claim of a deduc- tion, credit, or basis by such spouse in an amount for which there is no basis in fact or law." Sec. 6013(e)(2)(A) and (B); Purcell v. Commissioner, supra at 474. Ordinarily, a deduction has no basis in law or fact if it is "'fraudulent,' 'frivolous,' 'phony,' or 'groundless.'" Bokum v. Commissioner, supra at 1142 (quoting Stevens v. Commissioner, 872 F.2d 1499, 1504 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1988-63); see Ness v. Commissioner, 954 F.2d 1495 (9th Cir. 1992), revg. 94 T.C. 784 (1990). A deduction has no basis in fact when the expense for which it is claimed was never, in fact, made. Douglas v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 758, 762 (1986). A deduction has no basis in law when the expense, even if made, does not qualify as deductible expense under well-settled legal principles or when no substantial legal argument can be made in support of its deductibility. Id. The fact that the deduction has been disallowed does not, however, dictate a finding that the deduction is "grossly erroneous". Ness v. Commissioner, supra at 1498. The deductions in question arose from petitioner's husband's investment in Progressive Properties and Oxnard Properties, part- nerships formed and managed by Sol Finkelman. The losses claimed by Progressive and Oxnard for the years in issue, and the dis- tributive shares of those losses claimed by one of the partners,Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011