Thomas A. and Maria M. Hagman - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                          
          the MacCoon note became worthless in 1988.  Accordingly,                     
          petitioners are not entitled to a section 166(a) loss for 1988.              
          II.  Buck Sales                                                              
                                   FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               In 1986 and early 1987, petitioner spent approximately                  
          $76,000 as a result of his involvement with an entity known as               
          Buck Sales.  Petitioner spent approximately $20,000 on travel,               
          lodging, and food expenses for himself and six other individuals.            
          In addition, petitioner spent $18,700 on consulting fees and                 
          approximately $38,000 on legal fees.  Petitioners claimed these              
          amounts on their 1987 return as a long-term capital loss.                    
          Respondent disallowed the $76,087 long-term capital loss                     
          carryover on petitioners’ 1988 return.                                       
                                       OPINION                                         
               The next issue for our consideration is whether petitioners             
          are entitled to a $76,087 long-term capital loss relating to                 
          purported investments in Buck Sales.  Petitioner argues that he              
          spent approximately $76,000 in 1986 and early 1987 investigating             
          an investment opportunity in Hong Kong.  Petitioner contends that            
          such amounts are deductible as a long-term capital loss.                     
          Respondent contends that petitioners have failed to establish                
          that any of the payments are associated with any particular                  
          investment or business.  We agree with respondent.                           
               Petitioner’s testimony concerning his involvement with Buck             
          Sales was vague and unconvincing.  At the conclusion of his                  
          testimony, it was not possible to understand the nature of                   


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011