- 19 -
hearsay objection), we believe that petitioner justifiably
concluded that the content of Culnen & Hamilton’s books was not
an issue in this case. Respondent’s claim that, essentially, the
witnesses’ testimony should be disregarded because it is
unsupported is not persuasive.
Beyond respondent’s claim that petitioner’s witnesses’
testimony is unsupported, respondent makes unsupported,
unpersuasive, and offensive attacks on the credibility of
petitioner and the ethics of his witnesses. There are legitimate
issues in this case, but the ethics of petitioner’s witnesses are
not among them. Respondent has, here, all too clearly relied on
the tactic of trial by cross-examination, and that tactic has
failed. A resort to name-calling is not an acceptable fallback
position. We disapprove of that tactic.
E. Conclusions
We conclude, and find, that petitioner had adequate adjusted
basis in his Wedgewood investment to deduct his pro rata share of
Wedgewood’s losses for 1987, 1989, and 1990 and his share of the
Form 4797 loss (if any).11
11 Apparently, respondent’s position is that none of the
Wedgewood payments add to petitioner’s adjusted basis in his
Wedgewood investment (but see supra note 7). Petitioner’s
position is that all of the Wedgewood payments add to
petitioner’s adjusted basis in his Wedgewood investment. We have
not made specific findings as to the amount of petitioner’s
adjusted basis in his Wedgewood investment for each of the years
(continued...)
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011