David Stevan and Karen Ann Brandriet - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
          Whether a punitive damage award of $200,000 that petitioners                
          received in 1993 is includable in their gross income.  We hold it           
          is.2  (2)  Whether petitioners are entitled to deduct interest on           
          a consumer loan in an amount greater than that allowed by                   
          respondent.  We hold they are not.                                          
               All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in             
          effect for the taxable year in issue, and all Rule references are           
          to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless                    
          otherwise indicated.  References to petitioner are to David                 


               1(...continued)                                                        
          Car Cleaning, had gross receipts of $1,842 in 1993.                         
               Petitioners concede that the $48,440 of interest they                  
          received in 1993 pursuant to a judgment order is includable in              
          their gross income.                                                         
               In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that                
          petitioners were not entitled to claim deductions of $1,011 for             
          vehicle expenses and $322 for utility expenses, because of lack             
          of substantiation and because petitioners did not establish an              
          ordinary and necessary business purpose for the expenditures.               
               As we read the petition in this case, we do not construe it            
          as containing any reference to respondent's determinations                  
          disallowing petitioners' vehicle and utility expense deductions.            
          See Rule 34(b)(4).  Furthermore, petitioners did not address                
          these determinations at trial or on brief and did not proffer any           
          evidence to substantiate these claimed deductions.  Accordingly,            
          we consider petitioners to have conceded these amounts.                     
               2Respondent determined that for the year at issue certain              
          computational adjustments should be made, which would:  (1)                 
          Reduce petitioners' deduction for exemptions, (2) reduce                    
          petitioners' itemized deductions, and (3) preclude petitioners              
          from claiming the earned income credit.                                     
               In their petition, petitioners raised the issue of whether             
          the punitive damage award is includable in their gross income               
          and, on the basis of that issue, disputed respondent's                      
          computational adjustments.  Our decision of the punitive damage             
          award issue will resolve the dispute of respondent's                        
          computational adjustments.                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011