James H. Upchurch - Page 14

                                        - 14 -                                          
          In other words, the taxpayers in Norgaard met their burden by                 
          convincing the Court that their accounting system was reasonable              
          under the circumstances, and petitioner must show that his                    
          approach here was, in a like manner, reasonable.                              
               Petitioner has conceded the income tax deficiencies,                     
          agreeing that the facts and conclusions of Schillinger v.                     
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-640, control that aspect of the                 
          case.  In Schillinger, we found that the energy device which the              
          taxpayers claimed had a cost of $80,000 in fact had a fair market             
          value of $1,000.  In addition, we found that the taxpayer in                  
          Schillinger invested in the energy-device leasing program solely              
          to gain a tax advantage and not to earn an economic profit.                   
               Here, petitioner claims to have invested for retirement                  
          purposes and that his primary motivation was not the related tax              
          benefits.  Petitioner's actions, however, do not support his                  
          claim.  Petitioner, during his trial testimony, exhibited an                  
          understanding of the details and operation of the energy-device               
          leasing transaction.  He understood that he had no obligations                
          beyond the front-end payment of the amount of his investment and              
          consulting fees of Professional.  Moreover, petitioner knew that              
          the cost of his investment would be funded by the refund of taxes             
          already paid.  In this regard, petitioner netted and received                 
          more than $3,000 in excess of his expenditure to become involved              
          in the transaction.                                                           






Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011