Datha D. Burke - Page 11

                                                - 11 -                                                   
            Given the fact that BEC "paid" petitioners $925,000 in                                       
            consideration for property worth $512,000, and that petitioners                              
            do not dispute that BEC had enough E+P to characterize the                                   
            $413,000 difference as a dividend, we sustain respondent's                                   
            determination that petitioners received a $413,000 dividend on                               
            the transfer.3                                                                               
                  In reaching our holdings herein, we have considered all                                
            arguments made by petitioners for contrary holdings and, to the                              
            extent not discussed above, find them to be irrelevant or without                            
            merit.                                                                                       
                  To reflect the foregoing,                                                              
                                                             Decisions will be entered                   
                                                       under Rule 155.                                   

















            3 We recognize that the amount of debt canceled by BEC                                       
            exceeded the amount recited in the contract.  Respondent has not                             
            attempted to tax this excess amount.                                                         




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011