Curtis G. and Edna L. Lockett - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         

               The issues for decision are:  (1) Whether petitioners are              
          entitled to deductions for expenses, under section 162(a),                  
          incurred in connection with a medical research activity conducted           
          by Curtis G. Lockett (petitioner) during the years at issue, and            
          (2) whether petitioners are entitled to an itemized deduction,              
          under Schedule A, for job expenses and other miscellaneous                  
          expenses for the year 1991.2                                                
               Some of the facts were stipulated.  Those facts, with the              
          exhibits submitted therewith, are so found and are incorporated             
          herein by reference.  At the time the petition was filed,                   
          petitioners' legal residence was Mobile, Alabama.                           
               For some 20 years prior to the years at issue, petitioner              
          was a home building contractor.  Sometime during this period,               
          petitioner maintained a home laboratory for the purpose of                  
          developing a medicine to treat his minor daughter who was                   

               Petitioners conceded the failure to include in gross income            
          dividends for the year 1991.  The parties agree that the correct            
          amount of the unreported dividend income is $94.52 instead of $96           
          as set out in the notice of deficiency.  Petitioners also                   
          conceded the failure to include in gross income for the year 1991           
          the $500 premature distribution of an individual retirement                 
          account.  Respondent determined, in the notice of deficiency, the           
          10-percent additional tax on early distributions from qualified             
          retirement plans under sec. 72(t).  Although petitioners did not            
          expressly concede this adjustment, they presented no evidence and           
          did not address this issue at trial.  Petitioners are deemed to             
          have waived this issue.  The Court, therefore, determines that              
          adjustment against petitioners.  Rule 149(b); Walker-Scott Corp.            
          v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 34, 37 (1960).  All other adjustments in           
          the notice of deficiency are computational, based upon the                  
          Court's holding on the contested issues.                                    

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011