Nathanael Roman - Page 33

                                       - 33 -                                         
          the October 7 notes in the respective principal amounts of $5,351           
          and $5,020 as nonbusiness bad debts for 1989.  Pursuant to                  
          respondent's concession, petitioner is entitled to a $3,000                 
          capital loss deduction for each of the years at issue.  Secs.               
          1221(b), 1212(b).  Consequently, there is no substantial under-             
          statement of income tax for each of those years that is attribut-           
          able to the $3,000 capital loss deduction claimed by petitioner             
          for each such year.                                                         
               With respect to the charitable contribution deduction that             
          petitioner claimed for each of the years at issue, petitioner               
          contends that he is entitled to those deductions and that there-            
          fore respondent erred in imposing the accuracy-related penalty              
          with respect to them.  We disagree.  We have sustained herein               
          respondent's determinations disallowing the charitable contribu-            
          tion deductions claimed by petitioner for the years at issue.  On           
          the record before us, we sustain respondent's determinations                
          imposing the accuracy-related penalty for each such year to the             
          extent that it is attributable to those claimed deductions.                 
               With respect to the $7,633 deduction for wages and salaries            
          claimed by petitioner in his 1991 Schedule E, that claimed                  
          deduction resulted in a 1991 Schedule E "total loss" of $6,951              
          that petitioner used to reduce his income for 1991.  Petitioner             
          concedes that he is not entitled to the $7,633 deduction for                
          wages and salaries and the $6,951 "total loss" that he claimed in           
          his 1991 Schedule E.  However, he contends (1) that, in addition            




Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011