Pelton & Gunther, Professional Corporation - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         

          specifically alleged error or countered, on brief, respondent’s             
          position with respect to respondent’s treatment of the $400                 
          amounts.  Accordingly, respondent’s decision not to reverse the             
          “$400 portion” of the reimbursement income is not in controversy,           
          and there is no need to consider that aspect of the                         
          determination.                                                              
               In addition to contesting the substance of respondent’s                
          determination, petitioner also contends that the amounts                    
          disallowed by respondent are unreasonable and inaccurate.  The              
          problem is generated by the fact that petitioner did not                    
          specifically account for litigation costs in reporting its                  
          income.  Petitioner used a form of netting to arrive at the                 
          amount of the claimed deduction.  Petitioner’s approach is to               
          treat receipts and expenses as part of a “revolving pool into               
          which unsegregated receipts” were deposited and then used to pay            
          expenses.  Respondent determined that $129,815 of petitioner’s              
          $358,092 in claimed deductions was not allowable by concluding,             
          in part, that reimbursements during the first 6 months of the               
          next fiscal year (ended May 1994) represented litigation costs              
          advanced by petitioner during the 1993 fiscal year.  Petitioner             
          argues that respondent ignored the revolving pool concept and,              
          instead, calculated the disallowed portion of the deduction using           
          an analysis of individual cases pending in petitioner’s office.             







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011