Leonard Charles and Kaye Layne Ekman - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         

               Petitioner is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and             
          retired after a career in the Air Force.  He possesses dual                 
          degrees from the Air Force Academy in aeronautical engineering              
          and political science.  He also has advanced degrees from other             
          institutions of higher learning.  While petitioner was on active            
          duty in the Air Force, he developed an interest in the Porsche              
          automobile, which is manufactured in Germany.  Although Porsche             
          produced several types of engines, petitioner was particularly              
          interested in the Porsche 928 S4 engine.  From the evidence                 
          adduced at trial, it appears that this engine was designed to run           
          comfortably at speeds of 130 to 150 miles per hour; however, the            
          engine was not designed for racing.  Petitioner became interested           
          in developing modifications to the engine that would increase the           
          engine's horsepower so that the car would be adaptable for racing           
          and still could be used as a regular street vehicle.  Petitioner            
          felt that there was a niche in the market for this type of                  
          vehicle, although the manufacturer, Porsche, was not interested             
          in producing such an engine for the reason that Porsche offered             
          other types of engines for racing purposes.  The Porsche 928 S4             



               2(...continued)                                                        
          not claimed on their return.  In the written stipulation filed at           
          trial, with respect to the $18,305 disallowed expenses,                     
          respondent conceded that petitioners were entitled to a deduction           
          for $11,305 of these expenses, leaving at issue $7,000,                     
          representing the cost of the automobile engine referred to in the           
          statement of issues.                                                        




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011