-10-
contribution from Albert Chang, which they now apparently claim was
improper. See infra note 2.
Whether the 1988 payment was properly reported in 1988 is
outside our jurisdiction in this case. We do not have jurisdiction
to consider a claimed overpayment on petitioners' 1988 return
because the notice of deficiency at issue covers only 1989. See
sec. 6213(a); Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320
U.S. 418 (1943). Petitioners' reporting of the payment as a
dividend for 1988 does not entitle them to an offset against their
income for 1989.
Issue 4. Bad Debt Deductions
Petitioners claim they are entitled to bad debt deductions in
1989 for: (a) A $9,100 payment they made to Albert Chang on behalf
of Cirtex to purchase his Cirtex shares; (b) a $1,500 loan they
made to Cirtex to permit that company to purchase shares of its
stock owned by Ba Cac Luong; (c) a $4,000 loan they made on
Cirtex's behalf to Esstec; and (d) $1,500 reported as income from
the sale of an automobile that they never received.
The basis for the first two items involves the purchase of
Cirtex stock from two separate investors (Albert Chang and Ba Cac
Luong). Mr. Yei testified that he felt responsible for any losses
the investors sustained and agreed to repurchase personally, or
have the company repurchase, the stock when an investor complained
that the value of the stock fell below the original purchase price.
As best we can determine from the record, Mr. Chang demanded
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011