Datha D. Burke - Page 4

                                                 - 4 -                                                   
                                          FINDINGS OF FACT1                                              
                  Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.                               
            The stipulated facts and exhibits submitted therewith are                                    
            incorporated herein by this reference.  Petitioners are husband                              
            and wife, and they resided in Hutchinson, Kansas, when they                                  
            petitioned the Court.  They filed a 1982 Form 1040, U.S.                                     
            Individual Income Tax Return, using the filing status of "Married                            
            filing joint return".  They each owned 50 percent of BEC's stock                             
            during the relevant years.  BEC was the parent company of a                                  
            consolidated group of corporations engaged in the business of                                
            wholesaling and retailing natural gas liquids.                                               
                  Mr. Burke owed BEC approximately $853,000 in 1982, and                                 
            petitioners devised a plan to reduce this debt.  Under the plan,                             
            Mrs. Burke would transfer her interest in two parcels of property                            
            to Mr. Burke in exchange for his interest in certain stock, and                              
            Mr. Burke would transfer the property to BEC in reduction of the                             
            debt.  The parcels were located in Hutchinson, Kansas, one at                                
            A & Walnut (Walnut property) and the other at 707 North Main                                 


            1 After the Court filed the parties' opening briefs,                                         
            petitioners notified the Court that they did not intend to file                              
            the second brief.  We assume that petitioners do not object to                               
            respondent's proposed findings of fact, except to the extent that                            
            petitioners' proposed findings of fact are clearly inconsistent                              
            therewith, in which case we have resolved the inconsistencies                                
            based on our understanding of the record as a whole.  See Estate                             
            of Jung v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 412, 413 n.2 (1993); see also                              
            Estate of Freemen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-372;                                      
            Sutherland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-1; Houser v.                                     
            Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-330.                                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011