Thomas Louis Mitchell - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          accounts in the partnerships during the year in issue as                    
          reflected on the Schedules K-1:                                             


                                                   DB III   DB III                    
          Name          66 (Pet.)66 (M & A)DB II    (Pet.)   (M&A)   CAG               
          Cap. acct.    ($761.00)($508.00)$373.00  $3,051.00$763.00 $2,109.00         
          beginning 1987                                                              
          Ord. income   $1,634.68$1,089.79$683.32  $679.90  $110.26 $688.60           
          Distributions ($1,539.09)($1,026.03)($1,056.32)($3,891.52)($169.04)($2,383.06)       
          Cap. acct. ending($665.41)($444.24)0.00     ($160.62)$704.22 $414.54           
          1987                                                                        
          % Cap. ownership3%       2%       4%       4%       1%      2%                
          beginning 1987                                                              
          % Cap. ownership13%         12%   0%       .25%       11%   .5%               
          ending 1987                                                                 
          1 The Schedules K-1 are inconsistent with the findings as to the amount pledged as collateral and foreclosed
          on, as shown in the previous table.  See infra note 6.                      
          For each partnership interest, the beginning capital account                
          balance reflects the intangible drilling costs (IDC) incurred and           
          deducted by the partnership.                                                
                                       OPINION                                        
          Amount of Loss                                                              
               We must first decide the amount of the loss that petitioner            
          incurred as a result of the foreclosure of his partnership                  
          interests.2  In the notice of deficiency, respondent took the               


               2 Respondent concedes that petitioner had a loss equal to              
          his basis rather than a gain, even though respondent also                   
          concedes that the fair market value of petitioner's interests in            
          Dime Box No. II, Dime Box No. III, and CAG Farmout exceeded his             
          bases in those interests.  Cf. Correra v. Commissioner, T.C.                
          Memo. 1997-356.  The finding of fact as to the fair market value            
          of petitioner's foreclosed interests in the Dime Box No. II, Dime           
          Box No. III, and CAG Farmout partnerships, collectively, is based           
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011