Ronald and Barbara Kimmich - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         

          that GCC, petitioner, and Elmco owed to each other.  The                    
          Depository Agreement could not be modified, rescinded, or                   
          amplified except by a writing signed by petitioner, Elmco, and              
          GCC.  Pursuant to the Depository Agreement, payments went as                
          follows:  (1) GCC made lease payments to First Interstate; (2)              
          First Interstate credited petitioner's account for GCC's rental             
          payments; (3) First Interstate then debited petitioner's account            
          for payments to Elmco on petitioner's Buyer Acquisition Note; (4)           
          First Interstate credited Elmco's account for petitioner's Buyer            
          Acquisition Note payments; (5) First Interstate then debited                
          Elmco's account for payments to GCC on its installment note; and            
          (6) First Interstate credited GCC's account for Elmco's                     
          installment note payments.  If First Interstate received any                
          additional payments, it held those funds in petitioner's account            
          until receipt of a written directive signed by all three parties.           
               On their 1982, 1983, and 1984 joint Federal income tax                 
          returns, petitioners claimed losses from petitioner's computer              
          purchase and leaseback investment in the amounts of $75,000,                
          $110,000, and $105,000 respectively.  Respondent disallowed these           
          deductions in the October 18, 1989, notice of deficiency.                   
                                       OPINION                                        
               The first issue we must decide is whether petitioner is "at            
          risk" with respect to the long-term Buyer Acquisition Note.  As             
          stated above, respondent stipulated that petitioner is at risk              





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