Robert E. Signom, II and Lola Signom - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
          respectively.                                                               
               The issues remaining for decision for the year at issue                
          are:2                                                                       
               (1) Are petitioners entitled to a deduction under section              
          170(a) for a claimed noncash charitable contribution?  We hold              
          that they are not.                                                          
               (2) Are petitioners liable for the accuracy-related penalty            
          under section 6662(a)?  We hold that they are.                              
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
               Petitioners resided in Dayton, Ohio (Dayton), at the time              
          the petition was filed.                                                     
               Petitioner Robert E. Signom, II (Mr. Signom) received an               
          undergraduate degree in business administration in 1967 from                
          Miami University of Ohio.  Thereafter, he attended law school,              
          having matriculated for two years at Washington University in St.           
          Louis and for one year at Ohio State University, from which he              
          received a law degree in 1970.  Petitioner Lola Signom (Ms.                 
          Signom) received an undergraduate degree in journalism from Ohio            
          University.                                                                 


               2Petitioners conceded certain determinations in the notice             
          of deficiency (notice) and did not present evidence at trial or             
          make any argument on brief with respect to certain other determi-           
          nations in the notice.  We conclude that petitioners have aban-             
          doned contesting those determinations in the notice as to which             
          they presented no evidence at trial or make no argument on brief.           
          See Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 566 n.19 (1988).                    




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