- 4 -
issues to be decided are as follows:
(1) Whether, within the meaning of section 1366(d)(1)(B),
certain transactions in which certain petitioners acquired assets
from Spencer Services, Inc. (SSI), and subsequently conveyed such
assets to Spencer Pest Control of South Carolina, Inc. (SPC-SC),
and Spencer Pest Control of Florida, Inc. (SPC-FL), gave basis to
the shareholders of the transferee corporations;
(2) whether, within the meaning of section 1366(d)(1),
petitioner Bill L. Spencer (Mr. Spencer) had basis in SPC-SC as a
result of a bank loan made directly to SPC-SC and guaranteed by
him; and
(3) whether amortization allowable to SPC-SC and SPC-FL for
taxable years after 1990 should be computed based on (1) the
corrected amortizable basis of the property, without regard to
previously allowed amortization deductions, as petitioners
contend, or (2) the corrected amortizable basis, as reduced by
(...continued)
Finally, at trial, respondent reserved the right to argue
the applicability of sec. 465 as it relates to shareholder basis
in a small business corporation. On brief, however, respondent
advanced no sec. 465 argument. Accordingly, we conclude that any
such argument was abandoned by respondent. Rybak v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 566 (1988).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011