Sutherland Lumber-Southwest, Inc. - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         

          sections 61 and 162, leaving the applicability of section 274 as            
          the only matter in controversy.                                             
               Respondent determined income tax deficiencies of $341,631              
          and $119,558 for petitioner’s 1992 and 1993 tax years,                      
          respectively.  The deficiency determinations were based on                  
          adjustments to deductions involving airplane expenses, net                  
          operating loss, environmental tax, alternative minimum tax, and             
          contributions.  Petitioner moved for partial summary judgment               
          solely with respect to the disallowance of a portion of its                 
          claimed deduction for expenses to operate the aircraft, asking              
          the Court to hold either that section 274 does not apply or, if             
          section 274 applies, that section 274(e)(2) excepts petitioner              
          from the provisions of section 274.  If we decide that petitioner           
          is correct with respect to either contention, petitioner’s                  
          partial summary judgment motion will be granted.                            
               Respondent, in his cross-motion for partial summary                    
          judgment, asks the Court to hold that section 274 is applicable             
          and, further, that section 274(e)(2) limits petitioner’s                    
          deduction to the value of the benefits received by employees with           
          respect to the vacation flights.  Likewise, if respondent’s                 
          position is incorrect with respect to either contention,                    
          petitioner’s partial summary judgment motion will be granted and            
          respondent’s denied.                                                        







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011