Christopher A. Boyko and Roberta A. Boyko - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         

                                       OPINION                                        
               The primary issue in this case is whether petitioner is                
          entitled to an ordinary loss deduction versus a capital loss                
          deduction for the advances lost in the business venture with Mr.            
          Kelley and TIC/Multilogic.  Respondent challenges only the                  
          character of the losses.  Petitioner argues that the losses are             
          ordinary under several alternative theories.  Respondent asserts            
          that the losses are capital and, therefore, subject to the                  
          capital loss limitation rules of section 1211.                              
          I.  Section 1244--Losses on Small Business Stock                            
               Petitioner's first argument is that he is entitled to a                
          section 1244 stock loss in the amount of $83,9893 as originally             
          claimed on his return.  Respondent disallowed petitioner's                  
          section 1244 worthless stock loss, determining that the stock               
          issued did not satisfy all of the requirements for qualification            
          of section 1244 stock.  Section 1244 provides that any loss                 
          resulting from the sale of section 1244 stock shall be treated as           
          an ordinary loss.  Sec. 1244(a).  To qualify as section 1244                
          stock, the stock must be common stock issued by a domestic "small           
          business corporation", as defined in section 1244(c)(3), and the            

               3Petitioner offered no evidence indicating how this figure             
          was arrived at.  We assume that the $83,989 is composed of the              
          $65,066 in checks and a portion of the lease payments made by               
          petitioner.  Respondent does not challenge the amount of the                
          deduction.                                                                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011