- 2 -
during 1988 constituted a repayment of a loan or a dividend and
(2) the amount received by petitioner.1
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated for trial pursuant to
Rule 91.2 The parties' stipulations of fact are incorporated
herein by reference and are found as facts in the instant case.
At the time the petition was filed in the instant case,
petitioner resided in Richmond, Virginia.
Norton M. Bowman and Associates, Inc. (Associates) was
organized pursuant to Virginia law during the late 1970's.
During all relevant times, petitioner controlled Associates as
its president, chief executive officer, and sole stockholder.
Associates engaged in the business of constructing single-family
homes in the Richmond area. From the time of its organization
until 1981, Associates constructed 15 to 18 houses. The profits
earned from the sale of those houses were used to meet the
escalating costs of subsequent jobs and were not distributed.
Prior to the time of the distribution in issue, which occurred on
1 Petitioner alleged in his petition that the period of
limitations for assessment and collection of his 1988 income tax
had run by the time the notice of deficiency in the instant case
was issued. Petitioner made no argument on brief concerning that
allegation, and we consider it abandoned. Rybak v. Commissioner,
91 T.C. 524, 566 n.19 (1988).
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code as in effect for the
year in issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011