J.J. Zand - Page 129

                                        - 208 -                                       

          asset; i.e., his stock in the company.  Furthermore, in the                 
          notice of deficiency respondent reduced petitioner's reported               
          gain from the sale of the Diesel Power stock to reflect what                
          respondent then understood petitioner had received.                         
               Similarly, for 1981 petitioner claimed on his return that              
          his tax was zero, also due to his claim of right theory, even               
          though taxable income shown on the filed return was $315,928.               
          There is no evidence in the record of what amount petitioner paid           
          to Mr. Khalatbari in settlement of the litigation or to what                
          items the repayment was attributable.  The only evidence is the             
          return and some vague statements by the return preparer that he             
          determined an amount had been paid that could give rise to a                
          section 1341 calculation.  There is no evidence of record of how            
          the amount was calculated because the Court did not admit Joint             
          Exhibit 556-UJ into evidence.  Accordingly, we hold that                    
          petitioner is not entitled to reduce 1979 reported income by                
          $348,350.                                                                   
          VI.  Issue 10--Claimed Schedule C Business Expense Deductions               
               In the notices of deficiency covering the years 1973 through           
          1981 respondent disallowed substantial business expense                     
          deductions on three grounds, namely:  (1) That they had not been            
          substantiated; (2) that they were not shown to be ordinary and              
          necessary; or (3) that they were not shown to be petitioner's               
          expenses, but were those of another taxpayer.  Petitioner                   





Page:  Previous  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  208  209  210  211  212  213  214  215  216  217  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011