Vernon Miller - Page 13




                                               - 13 -                                                  
            loan.  As pertinent here, section 162(a) allows a deduction for                            
            ordinary and necessary expenses paid during the taxable year in                            
            carrying on any trade or business.  We have found that petitioner                          
            has failed to establish that he was in the trade or business of                            
            either investing generally or making loans specifically in 1986,                           
            when he made the Miller loan, or in 1993, the year in which he                             
            claims that that loan became worthless.  We find on the instant                            
            record that petitioner has failed to show that the $2,641 of                               
            unrecovered principal of the Miller loan and the legal expendi-                            
            tures that he had paid as of the end of 1993 in connection with                            
            the recovery of that loan constitute under section 162(a) ordi-                            
            nary and necessary business expenses that he paid during 1993 in                           
            carrying on a trade or business.                                                           
                  As pertinent here, section 212(1) and (2) allows a deduction                         
            for ordinary and necessary expenses paid during the taxable year                           
            for the production or collection of income or for the management,                          
            conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production                           
            of income.  We have found that, because the interest rate called                           
            for by the Miller loan was deemed to be usurious under California                          
            law, petitioner was entitled to recover only the principal of                              
            that loan, and the legal expenditures that petitioner had paid as                          
            of the end of 1993 were for the recovery of the principal of the                           
            Miller loan, and not for the recovery of interest thereunder.  On                          
            the instant record, we find that petitioner has failed to show                             






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011