- 3 -
Petitioners in each docket filed separate petitions
contesting the proposed deficiencies, penalties, and additions to
tax. These cases were consolidated for trial, briefing, and
opinion pursuant to Rule 141(a) because they present common
issues of fact and law.
After the parties’ concessions,3 the only remaining issues
for decision are:4
(1) Whether Christopher, Gregory, and Deborah, shareholders
in Cox Tomato, Inc. (Cox Tomato), an S corporation, had
sufficient bases in their Cox Tomato stock and in any
3Respondent and Christopher agree that, in 1994, Christopher
had gain of $1,554 from the sale of stock, rather than $11,305 as
was set forth in the notice of deficiency. Christopher also
conceded that he received ordinary dividend income of $391 in
1994.
Christopher did not present evidence regarding respondent’s
determination that he had unreported capital gain distributions
of $490 from Merrill Lynch in 1994, or that he was liable for the
addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely
file his 1994 return, and Christopher did not dispute these
adjustments on brief. These adjustments are deemed conceded in
accordance with Rule 149(b).
Christopher, Gregory, and Deborah did not present evidence
regarding respondent’s determination that they had unreported
distributions from Cox Tomato in 1994 of $9,784, $6,124, and
$4,204, respectively, and they did not dispute these adjustments
on brief. These adjustments are deemed conceded in accordance
with Rule 149(b).
Deborah conceded that she received from Cox Tomato cash
distributions of $17,440 in 1994 and $18,000 in 1995 and that
those amounts increase her taxable income for the respective
taxable years. Deborah also conceded that her share of Cox
Tomato’s loss for 1994 was $117,881, rather than $139,301 as she
originally reported.
4The only other issues raised in the notices of deficiency
are computational.
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