Victor A. and Marion W. Prieto - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
          for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax              
          Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                                      
               After concessions,1 the issues for decision are:  (1)                  
          Whether petitioners’ horse activity was an activity engaged in              
          for profit; and (2) whether petitioners are liable for penalties            
          pursuant to section 6662 for negligence.                                    
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulation of facts, the supplemental stipulation of facts,            
          the stipulation of facts with respect to subsequent years, the              
          stipulation of settled issues, and the attached exhibits are                
          incorporated herein by this reference.  At the time they filed              
          the petition, Victor Prieto (Dr. Prieto) and Marion Prieto (Mrs.            
          Prieto) resided in San Mateo, California.                                   
          I.   Dr. Prieto’s Medical Practice                                          
               Dr. Prieto is an orthopedic surgeon.  Since 1984, Dr. Prieto           
          has been in private practice.  In 1984, the partnership of                  
          Jensen, Watson & Light (JWL) hired him at a salary of $65,000 per           
          year.  In 1986, Dr. Prieto made partner at JWL.  At this time,              
          his salary increased to between $130,000 and $150,000 per year.             
               Since 1988, Dr. Prieto has run his own successful medical              
          practice in San Francisco, California.  Mrs. Prieto also worked             
          in her husband’s medical practice.  She spends a considerable               


               1  Respondent concedes that sec. 469 is not applicable.                




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