- 19 -
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-93; Bratulich v. Commis-
sioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-600.
In this case, petitioner does not address respondent's
position that the additional expenditures are subject to
section 280E and are not deductible, nor does petitioner
argue or present any reason to conclude that the additional
expenditures should be treated as an exclusion from gross
income on account of cost of goods sold. See Franklin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-184. We therefore reject
petitioner's contention that the receipts from the Michigan
transaction should be reduced by such expenditures.
Finally, we reject petitioner's assertion that the
proceeds of the marijuana transaction were split three ways
rather than two, as determined by respondent. Petitioner
bases this assertion on his own testimony and that of
Mr. Bonalewicz. However, petitioner admitted during his
plea hearing in the criminal case that he split the
proceeds equally with Mr. Lubiejewski. Moreover,
Mr. Bonalewicz testified that he had a limited role in the
transaction, and that he was present in Michigan for only
3 to 4 days after the marijuana arrived there. Given the
nature of his involvement in the transaction, we find that
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011