- 13 -13
limitations of section 1211. Sec. 166(d); United States v.
Generes, supra; Shinefeld v. Commissioner, supra.
Finally, we take note of the rhetorical question which
petitioners pose in their reply brief:
when Petitioners lost their residence to Agway as a
result of the guarantee, who was the real victim?
Agway or Petitioners?
We are not unsympathetic to the plight of petitioners, who lost
their home in the wake of the failure of Dutchess. Nevertheless,
petitioners may only take those deductions authorized by the
Internal Revenue Code. See Atkinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1984-378.
Additions to Tax and Penalties
Petitioners failed on brief to raise the issue of the
additions to tax and the penalty. By not addressing these
issues, petitioners have effectively conceded them. Sundstrand
Corp. v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 226, 344 (1991).
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: May 25, 2011