- 4 - OPINION In their petition, petitioners allege that the deficiency in this case is based upon respondent’s “determination that petitioners could not take ordinary losses, in the year of distribution of all of the proceeds, on stock previously held in an exempt employees trust.” Petitioners are mistaken on this point. As noted above, the deficiency in this case is based, in large part, upon respondent’s determination that the IRA distributions received by petitioner in 1996 are includable in petitioners’ income for that year. Elsewhere in the petition, petitioners allege that during 1996 “the stock was sold at prices below what had been paid for it by the trust” and that the proceeds of the sale “were distributed to petitioners and nothing was left in the trust”. According to the petition, the “aggregate of the proceeds was less than what had been contributed by the employer into the trust”. In their brief, petitioners argue that “investment losses were incurred by the plan” and therefore they “duly listed, on Schedule D, their investment losses exceeding gains incurred by the plan in 1996". The allegations contained in the petition and the argument presented in petitioners’ brief relate only to whether petitioners are entitled to a deduction for investment losses sustained by the plan; none of their allegations or argumentsPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011