Chen C. and Victoria R. Wang, et al. - Page 25

                                       - 25 -                                         

          consequence, we conclude EIC did not meet its burden and find               
          that the proper amount of income for 1989 under the accrual                 
          method is $19,484,214.                                                      
               Second, respondent contends in the second stipulation of               
          settled issues that EIC is required to report the following                 
          income from sales that occurred prior to March 1, 1986:                     

                      Year                     Amount of Adjustment                   
                      1989                           $337,668                         
                      1990                           418,548                          
                      1991                           292,745                          
                      1992                           291,437                          

          EIC contends that it does not have to report any income from                
          sales that occurred prior to March 1, 1986.  However, a witness             
          for EIC, Michael Cummins, a C.P.A. who had served as EIC's                  
          interim controller, testified on cross-examination that EIC would           
          have to report these amounts if the accrual method were found to            
          be the proper method of accounting.  EIC did not address this               
          issue in its opening brief nor its reply brief.  Accordingly, we            
          treat this as a concession by EIC and find for respondent.                  
               Third, the parties disagreed in the fourth stipulation of              
          settled issues as to the proper amount of income that the Wangs             



               7(...continued)                                                        
          resolution.  Nevertheless, on brief, petitioners do not further             
          address the differences between their calculation of accrual                
          income and the amount determined by respondent.                             




Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011