Charles and Beatrice M. Reynolds - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         

          E.   Travel and Meals and Entertainment Expenses                            
               Petitioners owned rental properties in Indiana, Kentucky,              
          and Virginia and farmland in Kentucky.  The farmland was                    
          inherited from petitioner’s father in 1990.                                 
               There are no structures on the farmland except for fences.             
          Many of petitioner’s family members live near his Kentucky                  
          farmland.  His brothers own farmland on either side of his land.            
          There was no crop grown on or harvested from the farmland in                
          1993.  His farm equipment was stored in his brother’s barn.  In             
          1994, petitioner’s brother raised the tobacco crop grown on the             
          land, and petitioner and his brother split the expenses and                 
          proceeds from the sale of the crop.                                         
               On Schedules C and E, petitioners claimed travel and meals             
          and entertainment expenses related to visiting their various                
          properties.  Respondent denied petitioners’ deductions on both              
          schedules for lack of substantiation.  Petitioners now claim                
          additional travel expenses related to Schedule E.                           
                                       OPINION                                        
          Issue 1.  Estoppel                                                          
               As a preliminary matter, petitioners argue that letters sent           
          to them by respondent after the issuance of the notice of                   
          deficiency indicating that “the amount you now owe” is “none” are           
          “binding admissions”.  Such “binding admissions”, petitioners               
          believe, are determinative of their case and according to them              





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