Ted W. Gleave - Page 47

                                       - 47 -                                         
          alternatives.  See, e.g., Estate of Fusz v. Commissioner 46 T.C.            
          214, 215 n.2 (1966).                                                        
               We hold for respondent on this issue.                                  
               (d) 1980                                                               
               It is clear that our determinations eliminate any possible             
          claim of Kenmore net operating loss carrybacks from its fiscal              
          1981 or fiscal 1982.   Supra tables 1, 3, and 4.  Respondent does           
          not dispute Kenmore’s claimed investment credits for fiscal 1981            
          or fiscal 1982; in fact respondent increases Kenmore’s claimed              
          fiscal 1982 investment credit by $1,896.50.  Neither of these               
          allowed investment credits is great enough to generate an                   
          investment credit carryback to fiscal 1980.  Thus, Kenmore has a            
          $2,972 deficiency for fiscal 1980, generated entirely by the                
          elimination of the claimed carryback from fiscal 1981.  Supra               
          note 7.  We have so found.                                                  
               We hold for respondent on this issue.                                  
               (e) Summary                                                            
               We conclude, and we have found, that respondent has proven             
          by clear and convincing evidence that Kenmore had an underpayment           
          of tax for each of the years in issue.                                      
               We hold for respondent on this issue.                                  
          (2) Fraudulent Intent                                                       
               Respondent contends as follows:  (1) Kenmore’s failure to              
          keep or furnish adequate books and records is a strong indicium             
          of fraud; (2) Kenmore’s failure to report substantial amounts of            






Page:  Previous  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011