Edward L. Provost and Vicky L. Provost - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
               The issues for decision are:  (1) Whether petitioners’                 
          advance of $200,000 to Richard Magness is deductible as a                   
          business bad debt under section 166 and (2) whether petitioners             
          are liable for an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).           
          We hold that the advance is not deductible as a business bad debt           
          and that petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalty.           
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulation of facts is incorporated herein by this                     
          reference.                                                                  
               Petitioners are married and resided in Dana Point,                     
          California, at the time the petition was filed.  Unless otherwise           
          indicated, “petitioner” refers to Edward L. Provost.                        
               Petitioner is a business consultant who, during 1993, also             
          held a real estate license.  Prior to 1987, petitioner worked as            
          an executive in a transportation company called Industrial                  
          Freight System (IFS).2  His employment at IFS ended in or about             
          1987, at which point he became a consultant to IFS.  Petitioner             
          was not in the business of lending money in 1993.                           
               Although petitioner received income from other sources, the            
          majority of his income from 1988 through 1991 was received from             
          consulting services.  These services were performed almost                  


               2At one time, petitioner owned a 40-percent interest in the            
          corporation.                                                                





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