William and Arlene G. Kingston - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         

          supra, respondent's position was not supported by the relevant              
          legal precedent based on the facts available to respondent.7                
               Respondent contends that respondent's position did not                 
          ignore the "worst-case scenario" standard but, rather,                      
          acknowledged that it would apply to the instant case.  Respondent           
          argues that the facts pertinent to the substantive issues in the            
          instant case could be readily distinguished from the facts in               
          Emershaw v. Commissioner, supra, and Martuccio v. Commissioner,             
          supra.  Therefore, respondent contends that respondent's position           
          was substantially supported by legal precedent given the facts              
          available to respondent and, thus, was reasonable as a matter of            
          law and fact.                                                               
               The Court agrees that respondent acknowledged the "worst-              
          case scenario" test should be applied to the facts of the instant           
          case.  Nevertheless, respondent failed to sufficiently                      
          distinguish the facts of the instant case from those in Emershaw            
          v. Commissioner, supra, and Martuccio v. Commissioner, supra, to            
          show that the result reached in the instant case should be                  
          different from that in Emershaw and Martuccio.  In fact, in the             
          opinion on the merits herein, this Court found that the sale-               


          7    In both Emershaw v. Commissioner, 949 F.2d 841 (6th Cir.               
          1991), affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-246, and Martuccio v. Commissioner,            
          30 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 1994), revg. T.C. Memo. 1992-311, the Court           
          of Appeals held that, under the "worst-case scenario" test, the             
          taxpayers were not "protected from loss" within the meaning of              
          sec. 465(b)(4).                                                             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011