John J. Kaiser and Sofia P. Kaiser - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         

          the instant case.  A taxpayer may pay the deficiency and interest           
          at any time after the notice of deficiency is mailed and still be           
          entitled to his "day" in this Court.  Sec. 6213(b)(4); Estate of            
          Richter v. Commissioner, 16 B.T.A. 936, 937 (1929).  The taxpayer           
          who so pays the deficiency and interest and then prevails will be           
          entitled to a refund or credit, sec. 6512(b)(3)(A), as well as              
          interest thereon.  Sec. 6611.4                                              
          2.  Bad Debt Deduction for 1981                                             
               From January 1, 1979 through June 23, 1981, petitioner John            
          J. Kaiser (petitioner) was the 100-percent shareholder of MACS              
          Corp. (MACS), an S corporation in the business of buying and                
          selling cleaning supplies in the Bridgeport, Connecticut, area.             
          During 1979 and subsequent years through 1981, petitioner                   
          advanced a total of $111,725 to MACS.  On its 1981 Form 1120S               
          (U.S. Small Business Corporation Income Tax Return) MACS reported           
          paid-in or capital surplus in the amount of $1,000 and loans from           
          shareholders in the amount of $110,725.                                     
               On their 1979, 1980, and 1981 Federal income tax returns,              
          petitioners claimed losses from MACS in the total amount of                 
          $95,661 and reduced petitioner's basis in the shareholder loans             


          4    Petitioners have not presented us with any argument that the           
          alleged payments were improperly applied by respondent or that              
          they were deposits against the deficiencies determined by                   
          respondent.  See Risman v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 191 (1993).               
          Indeed, there would be insufficient facts in the record before us           
          to decide such issue.                                                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011