- 8 -
Nevertheless, we wish to encourage parties in this Court to
stipulate facts to the greatest extent possible and to make
mutual concessions that will simplify and shorten trials. We
will do the best we can with the record at hand to supply the
missing links and to make inferences that properly give effect to
the parties’ stipulations and concessions.
The factual setting in the cases at hand, as well as the
overall issues raised by the deficiency notices, are similar to
those we recently considered in Hood v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.
(Aug. 25, 2000) (Court reviewed); see also Jack’s
Maintenance Contractors, Inc. v. Commissioner, 703 F.2d 154 (5th
Cir. 1983), revg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1981-349. Here, however,
the parties’ concessions leave only one issue to be decided.
Here, as in Hood and Jack’s Maintenance Contractors, an
individual who had conducted business as sole proprietor
incorporated the business and was thereafter charged with tax
crimes in failing to report income of the sole proprietorship.
The corporations in Hood and Jack’s Maintenance Contractors paid
the legal fees incurred by their individual shareholders in
2(...continued)
that the Court thinks might have been overly generous is
respondent’s concession that the corporation’s book entry setting
up the receivable of $239,594.68 evidenced a valid debt of Mr.
Lechner to Stainless. It’s a close call, which we have accepted
for the purpose of deciding the case at hand as the parties have
presented it.
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