Douglas R. and Jane E. Prince - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          made.6  Accordingly, we hold that the corporation is not entitled           
          to deduct the disallowed corporate payments as compensation                 
          expenses pursuant to section 162 for the taxable years in issue.            
               We next consider the issue concerning petitioners' interest            
          expense deduction for the Yorkville loan.  On Schedule E of their           
          1988 Federal income tax return, petitioners claimed an interest             
          expense on the Yorkville loan in the amount of $74,723, which               
          respondent disallowed.7  Respondent contends that petitioners did           
          not substantiate that interest on the Yorkville loan was paid.              
          Alternatively, respondent argues that petitioners did not prove             
          that the interest on the Yorkville loan was paid from the                   




          6    As we have concluded that petitioners have not established             
          the requisite intent, we need not address the requirement that              
          the payment be reasonable.                                                  
          7    At trial, the parties consented to the trial of the issue of           
          whether petitioners are entitled to deduct the interest expense             
          on the Yorkville loan for taxable year 1988.  In the notice of              
          deficiency, respondent disallowed the interest expense in the               
          adjustment to the category "Rental Loss (Schedule E)" for taxable           
          year 1988.  We note that the notice of deficiency transposed the            
          names of the adjustments to income entitled "Constructive                   
          Dividend" and "Rental Loss (Schedule E)".  Additionally, we note            
          that, during the course of the proceedings in this Court,                   
          respondent asserted that the amounts in issue in the category               
          "Rental Loss (Schedule E)" should be increased for taxable years            
          1987 and 1988, but did not file a motion for leave to amend the             
          answer.  The parties' stipulations as to taxable years 1987 and             
          1988 are based upon the increased amounts, which are deemed                 
          amendments to the pleadings pursuant to Rule 41(b).  Nonetheless,           
          as the interest expense on the Yorkville loan was disallowed in             
          the notice of deficiency, petitioners bear the burden of                    
          establishing that respondent's determination was erroneous.  Rule           
          142(a).                                                                     




Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011