Midwest Stainless, Inc. and Robert A. and Mary J. Lechner - Page 8

                                                - 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                                

            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