Christopher A. Boyko and Roberta A. Boyko - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         

          treatment for any portion of his basis in TIC/Multilogic stock              
          that may have been increased by capital contributions.                      
          II.  Section 166--Bad Debts                                                 
               Petitioner next argues, in the alternative, that the                   
          expenses originally deducted as a section 1244 worthless stock              
          loss are deductible as a business bad debt under section 166.  In           
          addition, petitioner argues that the $30,550 paid for the release           
          of the two computer leases, which was originally deducted as a              
          long-term capital loss on petitioner's 1991 return, should also             
          be deductible as a business bad debt under section 166.4                    
          Respondent contends that petitioner is not entitled to business             
          bad debt treatment because:  (1) The payments to or for the                 
          benefit of Mr. Kelley do not represent a bona fide debt; and (2)            
          assuming that the payments did result in a bona fide debt, the              
          debt owed to petitioner was a nonbusiness bad debt.  We agree               
          with respondent's first argument and do not consider the question           
          of whether the payments to or for the benefit of Mr. Kelley                 
          represent a business versus a nonbusiness bad debt.                         
               Generally, taxpayers may deduct the value of bona fide debts           
          owed to them that become worthless during the year.  Sec. 166(a).           

               4Respondent contends that petitioner's claim with respect to           
          the release of the computer leases should be denied as untimely             
          and not properly raised.  Because we find no merit to                       
          petitioner's position it is unnecessary to address the merits of            
          respondent's argument.                                                      






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