- 24 -
District Court, and in-house accounts as of January 1, 1992;
namely, $555,909.13
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
13 Because we sustain respondent’s determination that the
balance in the in-house account as of Jan. 1, 1992, must be
included in 1992 gross income, we believe the possibility exists
that certain amounts in the in-house account could be subject to
double taxation, although the record is not entirely clear on
this point.
It would appear to the Court that the possibility of double
taxation exists because the balance in the in-house account
decreased between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 1992. The record
establishes that one possible disbursement from the in-house
account was to fund required increases in the Charleston County
Court or U.S. District Court account. The Charleston County
Court account in fact increased between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 1992,
and we have sustained respondent’s determination that that
increase must be included in petitioner’s 1992 gross income.
However, if any portion of the 1992 increase in the Charleston
County Court account was funded with a disbursement from the in-
house account, then the possibility appears to exist that this
disbursement was taxed both as a part of the existing Jan. 1,
1992, balance in the in-house account and as an increase in the
Charleston County Court account between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 1992.
We expect the parties to address this problem as part of
their Rule 155 computations.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Last modified: May 25, 2011