Estate of Emanuel Trompeter, Deceased, Robin Carol Trompeter Gonzalez and Janet Ilene Trompeter Polacheck, Co-Executors - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         

          known] would attach."  See, e.g., Newman v. Commissioner,                   
          T.C. Memo. 1992-652; Lerch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-295,            
          affd. 877 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1989); Hamilton v. Commissioner,               
          T.C. Memo. 1987-278, affd. without published opinion 872 F.2d               
          1025 (6th Cir. 1989); Shih-Hsieh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                
          1986-525, affd. without published opinion 838 F.2d 1203 (2d Cir             
          1987); Estate of Cardulla v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-307;             
          Apothaker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-445; Boggs v.                    
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-429; Meredith v. Commissioner, T.C.           
          Memo. 1985-170; Stephens v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-449;              
          Phillips v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-133; see also Compton             
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-642; Hansen v. Commissioner,               
          T.C. Memo. 1981-98; Nunez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1969-216;             
          Brown v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1968-29, affd. per curiam                 
          418 F.2d 574 (9th Cir. 1969).  Moreover, as the Court of Appeals            
          for the Fifth Circuit has stated in a similar setting:                      
               The taxpayer sought to introduce evidence to show the                  
               market value of the option at the time it was given.                   
               This evidence was excluded in the court below.  In                     
               addition, the taxpayer attempted to show additional                    
               costs incurred for the timber and not claimed on the                   
               1949 return.  Likewise, the court below excluded this                  
               evidence.  Also, with respect to the unreported sales,                 
               the taxpayer proffered evidence as to alleged                          
               additional costs incident to the sales not reported on                 
               the 1949 return.  Again, the court below excluded the                  
               evidence as being irrelevant.  This was error.  Indeed,                
               the appellee, United States, confesses error as to the                 
               exclusion of this evidence and concedes that the case                  
               should be remanded for a new trial.  This undoubtedly                  
               is the correct view, for these alleged additional costs                
               and the reasonable market value of the option, if                      
               proven, are relevant to the existence of a tax                         
               deficiency.  Internal Revenue Code of 1939, �293(b).                   



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