- 12 -
portion of the deficiency (and the accuracy-related penalty) for
each of the years 1994 and 1995 that is attributable to determi-
nations in the notice with respect to that alleged separate
property of Ms. Treadaway. Petitioner also argues that he is not
liable for the portion of the deficiency (and the accuracy-
related penalty) for each of the years 1994 and 1995 that is
attributable to the determinations in the notice disallowing the
net operating loss deduction claimed in the joint return for each
of those years. That is because, according to petitioner, those
claimed net operating loss deductions were generated by the
horse-training activities which petitioner maintains utilized
property and generated income that were the separate property of
Ms. Treadaway.
Based on our examination of the record in this case, we find
that petitioner has failed to establish that any of the property
that petitioner claims was the separate property of Ms. Treadaway
did in fact constitute her separate property under the law of the
State of Arizona.
Assuming arguendo that petitioner had established that the
property in question was the separate property of Ms. Treadaway,
on the record before us, we nonetheless reject petitioner’s
position that he is not liable for the portion of the deficiency
(and the accuracy-related penalty) for each of the years at issue
that is attributable to respondent’s determinations which we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011