Larry A. and Kathleen T. Monico - Page 6

                                                - 6 -                                                   
            to prove that the Chef-Reddy payments constitute a return of                                
            capital.  See Rule 142(a) (burden of proof is on petitioners).                              
            The parties have locked horns on whether, sometime prior to                                 
            receipt of the Chef-Reddy payments, Larry Monico received a                                 
            payment in liquidation of his interest in the account receivable.                           
            Petitioners describe the nature of the controversy as follows:                              
                  Petitioners exchanged a short term account receivable                                 
                  for a long term promissory note in a preceding year.                                  
                  Petitioners assert the receipt of the promissory note                                 
                  was a cash equivalent right, requiring the Petitioners                                
                  to recognize taxable gain in the year of exchange                                     
                  [which they failed to recognize].  Petitioners claim                                  
                  basis in the promissory note equal to the gain that                                   
                  should have been recognized in the year of the                                        
                  exchange.                                                                             
            Respondent describes the principal question presented as:                                   
            "Whether the account receivable * * * distributed to petitioner                             
            Larry Monico by M & O Farms was converted to a note receivable at                           
            a specific point in time between 1983 and 1989."                                            
                  There is some confusion in petitioners' argument as to when                           
            income should have been recognized by them with respect to the                              
            account receivable.  Petitioners conclude their opening brief                               
            with the following argument:  "When the Petitioners exchanged                               
            their rights to collect the account receivable for a                                        
            long term promissory note [pursuant to the Other Matters section                            
            of the purchase agreement], they should have recognized income in                           
            that year (1987)."  In their reply brief, petitioners propose a                             
            finding of fact that Larry Monico accepted a promissory note from                           
            Chef-Reddy in 1983 "rather than collecting full payment on the                              




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011