Gregorio and Viviana Mankita - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          1990 tax return on October 15, 1991.  For 1990, petitioners (1)             
          reported the sale of the office building and purchase of the                
          seven houses as a like-kind exchange under section 1031, (2)                
          deducted a bad debt and Schedule C expenses, and (3) claimed that           
          they overpaid their 1990 Federal income tax by $1,495.                      
          B.   The Audit of Petitioners' 1990 Return                                  
               E. Mitzi Morrow (Morrow), a revenue agent, began to audit              
          petitioners' 1990 return around June 1992.  Petitioner met with             
          Morrow on August 13, 1992, and gave her evidence supporting most            
          of petitioners' Schedule C expenses.  He did not give Morrow                
          documentary evidence that showed petitioners' basis in the like-            
          kind exchange properties.  The documents that he gave Morrow did            
          not convince her that petitioners were entitled to a bad debt               
          deduction.                                                                  
               Around September 1992, petitioners hired Albert H. Feldman             
          (Feldman), a C.P.A., to help them with the audit.  Feldman and              
          Morrow met on September 30, 1992.  Feldman gave Morrow more                 
          documents on November 25, 1992.                                             
               On December 14, 1992, Morrow asked Feldman for more                    
          information.  Morrow did not hear from petitioners or Feldman               
          after December 14, 1992.                                                    
               Morrow reviewed petitioners’ case on May 17, 1993.  She                
          disallowed petitioners' bad debt loss because she concluded that            
          petitioners had not substantiated their claim that they had lent            
          money to a third party.  She also concluded that petitioners were           




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011