Michael E. and Linda S. Murray - Page 2




                                                - 2 -                                                  

            concessions by the parties,1 we must decide whether petitioners                            
            may deduct a loss purportedly attributable to worthless stock.                             
            We hold they may not.  Section references are to the Internal                              
            Revenue Code in effect for the applicable year.  Rule references                           
            are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                                      
                                             Background                                                
                  All facts were either stipulated or found from the exhibits                          
            which the parties submitted with their stipulations of fact.                               
            Those stipulations of fact and exhibits submitted therewith are                            
            incorporated herein by this reference, and the stipulations of                             
            fact are found accordingly.  Petitioners are husband and wife.                             
            They resided in Longwood, Florida, when we filed their petition.                           
                  Petitioners filed with the Commissioner a joint 1993 Federal                         
            income tax return on September 26, 1995.  They claimed on that                             
            return a $455,160 capital loss attributable to $317,424 and                                
            $137,736 of losses reportedly passing through to them from S                               
            corporations named Poinciana Mobile Home Park, Inc. (Poinciana),                           


                  1 Petitioners allege in their petition in relevant part that                         
            respondent erred in determining:  (1) Michael E. Murray (Mr.                               
            Murray) realized a gain on the foreclosure described herein and                            
            (2) Linda S. Murray is not an innocent spouse.  We consider                                
            petitioners to have conceded the latter allegation because:  (1)                           
            They did not list the allegation as an issue when they informed                            
            the Court at the calendar call of the issues still in dispute,                             
            (2) they have introduced into the record no evidence as to the                             
            allegation, and (3) their posttrial briefs include no reference                            
            to the allegation.  For the same reason, we also consider                                  
            petitioners to have conceded the addition to tax and accuracy-                             
            related penalty.                                                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011