- 6 - checks when received to the Hoyt office so that Hoyt could calculate and deduct intervenor’s required contribution to the Shorthorn partnership. Intervenor delivered the endorsed refund checks to Hoyt.2 Intervenor had invested only $25 in the Shorthorn partnership at the time he and petitioner filed their joint 1985 Federal income tax return, in which they claimed $20,180 in tax losses from the Shorthorn partnership. As a result of the Shorthorn partnership losses, petitioner and intervenor received a tax refund for 1985 of $3,185. Intervenor signed the refund check over to the Shorthorn partnership and received back less than $500. The Shorthorn partnership kept the balance of the income tax refund as intervenor’s Shorthorn partnership capital contribution. At the time petitioner and intervenor filed their 1986 return, intervenor had invested less than $3,0003 in the Shorthorn partnership, yet claimed an additional $26,234 of Shorthorn partnership losses (together with the 1985 losses, petitioner and intervenor recognized a total of $46,414 in 2It is unclear whether, and if so how (a general endorsement or a restrictive endorsement), petitioner endorsed the refund checks. 3According to the testimony, intervenor had invested the original $25 plus the $3,185 tax refund endorsed to the Hoyt Organization, less approximately $500 of the tax refund that they received back from the Hoyt organization.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